Thread: Is There Morality In Profit?

Morality in profit surely exists. It exists in two major ways, and neither one of those is altruism or the quest for social benefits from your work.

First, cash is subjective. In and of itself, it means nothing. It is a placeholder for production and effort and work. That's why only the working and honest person has use for money in and of itself. Thieves, (anyone able to procuce but instead takes the 'production' of someone else which is money,) only have use for the benefits of money. Those thieves would rob anyway if there was no money and the worker would work if we were still bartering, too.

But money in and of itself is a tool of the person who puts forth effort. By trading a dollar I am trading my effort for yours. If all people where honest no one person would have more money than their value permitted. (With the exception of heirs and such.) Because in the perfect system, everyone is not given things equally. Instead, everyone is given opportunity and recieves from society in direct proportion to what they produce for it. (Note I said proportionately. I still believe in taxes. And by producing profit, you are obviously producing goods/services. Thus, those who are truly unable to work who need taxes still benefit from your profit.) Only true capitalism can do that. This makes profit the most righteous thing about economics and a capitalistic system. It is not evil.

People think thievery is something that it isn't. Thievery is not just taking from people. If so, businessmen would be thieves. Because wealth is really just a ranking tool. Rich is not determined by standard of life. America is richer than Bolivia, but someone in the top 3 percent of wealth in Bolivia is richer than the man in the top 9 percent of wealth in America until they start working/comparing internationally, at which point the American becomes richer. That is how the system of wealth works. There is only so much to go around. If I want to film weddings for a living and five local companies all film various percentages of the market, I HAVE to edge someone out to survive. Or else I win a percentage away from each. What happens? The best product or best managed product usually wins over. (Dishonesty and thieves can change that.)

That's how the system works. How ALL systems work. Even in communism, that's how it works. It is just that in communism, when someone is given a pittance, someone else doesn't recieve that pittance. Even if the communistic country had endless resources, not allowing profit is robbery from the profiteers because wealth has nothing to do with standard of living but is relative and comparative. So, there is going to be swapping of wealth and taking of wealth. Through profit this is going to be a distribution based on who produces the most and by encouraging further effort. Through means other than profit, well, if you believe that by taking goods and money without production or without the will of the money's true maker, then the only alternative is robbery.

In fact, by these qualifications, making profit honestly and without violating human rights is the most moral social function one can perform. It elevates society when people create, but more importantly it elevates whoever created it. This defies the thieves. It defies the immoral. Objective assessment implies logic. Objective study of morality is going to one part of morality- that's ethics. Ethics are a social function. Production is the cornerstone of all societies and those producers are it's backbone. Profit is a stand in for those producer's effort and creation, in a manner that discourages dishonesty and cannot exist when dishonesty is everywhere. Logically speaking, (logic is objective,) profit is good.

"cash" Is not static, is what I think you mean to say. Because it can be objectively measured and equated in a contemporary standpoint in the united states, for example.

If one does not make a profit then one will have no money with which to subsist..?

The moral vector of profit is service. Profit operates best for both the individual and the common good when one focuses upon the goods and services one provides and/or the interactions with customers and peers, with the intent that all of the above be of use--or 'profit'--to all concerned. As profit accumulates, it becomes both expected and advised that some portion be devoted to civic and philanthropic ends, too.

Originally Posted by spockman

That's how the system works.

Except that in capitalism, companies can grow until they reach a critical mass where they're in a position to block any competition and stay aloft while releasing inferior products. Not to mention that these companies can actually dictate the flow of culture within a country.

You're also viewing communism through the eyes of a capitalist. Communism doesn't spread out individual gain because there is no individual gain.

Eh, this is a dualistic problem.

Dualism in my opinion is the 'root of evil'. In this case, what I mean is, dualism is the idea that there are two opposites that either oppose each other - good vs evil, or can not exist without each other, like happiness and suffering (what, you've never heard of BLISS?). An example of dualism is the belief that caring about yourself is selfish - and therefore by default of the definition of selfish - caring about yourself goes against altruism.

It's all bullcrap! Most of dualism problems actually spring from the limitations of language. On one hand selfish is defined (in our minds)as bad. On the other hand even eating your daily bread is defined as a selfish act because it is a self-serving act, creating a the idea - solely from the limitation of language - that caring about yourself is SELFISH and against altruism! All from the concept of what words mean..

Duality has NO reality in the physical reality - the problems of duality only exist IN OUR MIND.

The reality concerning selfishness and altruism is simple - if you don't take care of yourself first, you are not able to take care of others. In other words, the act of caring about yourself and altruism DO NOT OPPOSE EACH OTHER. Do not.

There is another wicked duality idea that's very popular. It's the idea that in order for some people to have abundance others must be in poverty! This is the mentality of the elite - which is why walmart claims it can't raise wages - because then they'll make less profit! (it also makes people think that to be truly altruistic, you can't 'enjoy' life)

If it's duality - it's a mental delusion.

Walmart, you're retarded. Abundance DOES NOT create poverty. Here is an example of abundance at it's most primal - a kernel of corn. How much corn can you make from one seed? That single seed has the potential to create thousands of more seeds!! Abundance does not stem from poverty - it stems from nature. Nature has given us everything. Our food our water our shelter our clothes, even our technology. Everything comes from nature. Nature is abundant.

There is enough natural resources on the earth for everyone to live an abundant life. Note that abundance means having everything you need and desire. What the modern world has is not abundance, it's excess, which leads to waste.. How much food in restaurants get thrown away because we have bloated proportions that aren't even healthy? Who needs or truly desires a styrofoam cup? We buy it because culture has brought us up into the idea that things should be 'throw aways'. We are taking the abundance the earth has given us, and turning it into trash - ON PURPOSE! You can literally measure our wasteful excess by the size of our landfills.

PS. Excess does not make people happy. On the contrary, excess leads to a host of mental and physical problems - from hoarding to diabetes.

Abundance leads to abundance.

Poverty leads to poverty.

That's the reality. You pay people crap, you don't generate more profit for yourself, you actually inhibit the power of the dollar to buy. And if people can't afford what you're selling, you don't make profit.

It's also part of the reason why the economy crashes from time to time. The delusion that the elite are living from time to time pops - and lo behold there's no money for anyone! (GREEDY selfishness is hoarding abundance, which cuts off the flow of abundance, and leads to decay)

What's the reality-morality of generating profit (legally in this case)? When you seek to generate profit (successfully) it doesn't matter if you believe you are being SELFISH, it's impossible to not share your profit! Imagine you're so SELFISH, you create a successful business just so you can buy a private island and flip the bird at the world.

Great, guess what your business generated jobs. It generated income for OTHER people, other people who now have money to support themselves, feed their family, buy ipods. The more sucessful your business is, the more abundance you create for other people. Or another example, think of a blockbuster movie. Look at the credits list! Think of the theatres and retail stores, and all the employees who can continue working because their work place stays in business. That's a lot of people who profit from a single hollywood hit.

Compare that movie to a movie created, directed, filmed, produced and distributed by ONE person, selling the copies from his backyard. Eh, abundance always works for the greater good, and this individual who went against the natural flow of abundance generates significantly less profit.

Money is not evil. Profit, abundance, even selfishness (which in the truest sense doesn't exist because no man is an island) are not evil. Not when you understand how abundance really works.

Duality. . . . . that's 'evil'

I'm not necessarily talking about an abundance of profit. It could be a small amount, mediocre, a little above average....
but where i feel there is a morality is to the community and parents that have given you the opportunity
which I could argue is indisputable. You OWE your community a small some of your profit so that you can give others the same opportunity you had, in order to promote and sustain a healthy economy.
the question to me is: how do we justify how much we should return to our schools/community/clubs etc.. ?
I feel inclined to say that based on the amount of money you earn, you should give more back to the community. Like a tax, not a scaling one though! Just a fixed rate that delineates your generosity. You can always give more/less if you want to.
While all I am saying may just be accomplished through sales tax, I'm not certain that it is the right way to handle the distribution of funds.
People are always arguing about where their tax dollars go...
so why not just cut taxes down to almost nothing and allow independent business to direct these funds.
but enforce everyone to cut at least 5% of their pay into these private organizations OR the government.
I can see where corruption could easily come into play, but in a semi decent management, sounds a lot easier.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

I'm not necessarily talking about an abundance of profit. It could be a small amount, mediocre, a little above average....
but where i feel there is a morality is to the community and parents that have given you the opportunity
which I could argue is indisputable. You OWE your community a small some of your profit so that you can give others the same opportunity you had, in order to promote and sustain a healthy economy.
the question to me is: how do we justify how much we should return to our schools/community/clubs etc.. ?
I feel inclined to say that based on the amount of money you earn, you should give more back to the community. Like a tax, not a scaling one though! Just a fixed rate that delineates your generosity. You can always give more/less if you want to.
While all I am saying may just be accomplished through sales tax, I'm not certain that it is the right way to handle the distribution of funds.
People are always arguing about where their tax dollars go...
so why not just cut taxes down to almost nothing and allow independent business to direct these funds.
but enforce everyone to cut at least 5% of their pay into these private organizations OR the government.
I can see where corruption could easily come into play, but in a semi decent management, sounds a lot easier.

I agree that you owe your community something. But ONLY because your community gives something to you. No business entity ever owed anyone anything for nothing. I like the idea of less flat taxes, but what is the true incentive to pay more than the absolute minimum? And do they choose the private institutions and governemnt branches they pay to? If so, what will keep it from being one big political circle jerk? I am curious to hear your reasons why you want this to be implemented.

Originally Posted by juroara

Eh, this is a dualistic problem.

Dualism in my opinion is the 'root of evil'. In this case, what I mean is, dualism is the idea that there are two opposites that either oppose each other - good vs evil, or can not exist without each other, like happiness and suffering (what, you've never heard of BLISS?). An example of dualism is the belief that caring about yourself is selfish - and therefore by default of the definition of selfish - caring about yourself goes against altruism.

It's all bullcrap! Most of dualism problems actually spring from the limitations of language. On one hand selfish is defined (in our minds)as bad. On the other hand even eating your daily bread is defined as a selfish act because it is a self-serving act, creating a the idea - solely from the limitation of language - that caring about yourself is SELFISH and against altruism! All from the concept of what words mean..

Duality has NO reality in the physical reality - the problems of duality only exist IN OUR MIND.

The reality concerning selfishness and altruism is simple - if you don't take care of yourself first, you are not able to take care of others. In other words, the act of caring about yourself and altruism DO NOT OPPOSE EACH OTHER. Do not.

There is another wicked duality idea that's very popular. It's the idea that in order for some people to have abundance others must be in poverty! This is the mentality of the elite - which is why walmart claims it can't raise wages - because then they'll make less profit! (it also makes people think that to be truly altruistic, you can't 'enjoy' life)

If it's duality - it's a mental delusion.

Walmart, you're retarded. Abundance DOES NOT create poverty. Here is an example of abundance at it's most primal - a kernel of corn. How much corn can you make from one seed? That single seed has the potential to create thousands of more seeds!! Abundance does not stem from poverty - it stems from nature. Nature has given us everything. Our food our water our shelter our clothes, even our technology. Everything comes from nature. Nature is abundant.

There is enough natural resources on the earth for everyone to live an abundant life. Note that abundance means having everything you need and desire. What the modern world has is not abundance, it's excess, which leads to waste.. How much food in restaurants get thrown away because we have bloated proportions that aren't even healthy? Who needs or truly desires a styrofoam cup? We buy it because culture has brought us up into the idea that things should be 'throw aways'. We are taking the abundance the earth has given us, and turning it into trash - ON PURPOSE! You can literally measure our wasteful excess by the size of our landfills.

PS. Excess does not make people happy. On the contrary, excess leads to a host of mental and physical problems - from hoarding to diabetes.

Abundance leads to abundance.

Poverty leads to poverty.

That's the reality. You pay people crap, you don't generate more profit for yourself, you actually inhibit the power of the dollar to buy. And if people can't afford what you're selling, you don't make profit.

It's also part of the reason why the economy crashes from time to time. The delusion that the elite are living from time to time pops - and lo behold there's no money for anyone! (GREEDY selfishness is hoarding abundance, which cuts off the flow of abundance, and leads to decay)

What's the reality-morality of generating profit (legally in this case)? When you seek to generate profit (successfully) it doesn't matter if you believe you are being SELFISH, it's impossible to not share your profit! Imagine you're so SELFISH, you create a successful business just so you can buy a private island and flip the bird at the world.

Great, guess what your business generated jobs. It generated income for OTHER people, other people who now have money to support themselves, feed their family, buy ipods. The more sucessful your business is, the more abundance you create for other people. Or another example, think of a blockbuster movie. Look at the credits list! Think of the theatres and retail stores, and all the employees who can continue working because their work place stays in business. That's a lot of people who profit from a single hollywood hit.

Compare that movie to a movie created, directed, filmed, produced and distributed by ONE person, selling the copies from his backyard. Eh, abundance always works for the greater good, and this individual who went against the natural flow of abundance generates significantly less profit.

Money is not evil. Profit, abundance, even selfishness (which in the truest sense doesn't exist because no man is an island) are not evil. Not when you understand how abundance really works.

Duality. . . . . that's 'evil'

Yeah. Greed and the wellfare of the whole can exist at the same time! They don't contradict. Even a system like the one I am arguing for does not have to be without socialism. Money in it's truest sense is not a stand in for resources as much as it is a stand in for production of resources. I mean to say, in an ideal system whoever has produced the most should have the most money, not 'whoever has the most has the most money.' And riches are just who has more than the next guy. So economic class and status can exist independent of resources. The more people produce, the more money there is to go around and a higher standard of living emerges. But economic position, who owns the most production/effort, will never change. A system of competition does not have to be one where people's 'needs' are not met.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The moral vector of profit is service. Profit operates best for both the individual and the common good when one focuses upon the goods and services one provides and/or the interactions with customers and peers, with the intent that all of the above be of use--or 'profit'--to all concerned. As profit accumulates, it becomes both expected and advised that some portion be devoted to civic and philanthropic ends, too.

Agreed. But this doesn't have to be altruism. If a company gives taxes, it should expect soemthing in return. Even if that is just a better society and a safe nation for the company to do business in. The government should create with that money as well as protect from thievery. The trade for goods and effort is still being done. Otherwise, the government becomes the ery kind of criminal it is obligated to protect it's tax payers from.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Except that in capitalism, companies can grow until they reach a critical mass where they're in a position to block any competition and stay aloft while releasing inferior products. Not to mention that these companies can actually dictate the flow of culture within a country.

You're also viewing communism through the eyes of a capitalist. Communism doesn't spread out individual gain because there is no individual gain.

And I agree with you. But with a government that protects individuals by making sure that their rights are not violated by companies, a large portion of the companies potential influence can be eliminated. Sure, they can get such a dominant hold on the market that there is not enough left for anyone else. (For a company to reach that point the product/service is in all probability good.) There is another element, too. Investors. Say I come up with a new way to generate electricity. Through papaya seeds, or something.

Earlier, I couldn't break into the electricity business. I had a good head for management, but I had a normal electric product. Investors saw no reason to think I am better than the monopoly company 'US Electricity.' (I am sure you understand how monopolies work, probably from first hand experience. Canada has pretty loose monopoly laws, instead favoring more general anti-trust laws. I envy you.) But with my new, awesome way to produce electricity, I can do one of two things. A.) Go to US Electricity and sell it at a high price to them or B.) Go to investors and start a new company.

Hint: The investor could theoretically be the U.S. government. If US Electricity has on-market pricing and manages well, I will likely go with A. It is better for everyone. If, however, I think I could undercut US Electricity or offer a better product that is better managed, I will do that because it could make me more money.

The simplest problem with this is the scenario, 'What if US Electricity buys your patent and then sits on it?' That is thievery. I am trading effort and production for a pittance to stifle effort and keep the public from recieving a good product. Still, it may happen rarely. But only rarely will a superior product that has an effecient means of production stay out of the public's hands in true capitalism. It will happen, but less than any other system.

Besides: Worth of an item or service is not determined by it's social benefits, it's cost to create, the man hours put into it, how much the producer's need to stay in business, etc. Worth of a service or good is only determined by what people will pay for something. So nothing can ever truly be gouged and sold above what it is worth.

And there will always be at least one potential competitor to oppose a monopoly... Whatever the government itself can produce in that market. The government always gets taxes and always and it cocnerns itself with public benefit and human rights AS it's service. If some company is hurting the public in how it manages itself, the government will have the means to compete with it.

On point number two... Yes, there is no individual gain in communism. But there is individual effort. There is individual production. And that is being stolen from the workers by communism.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Except that in capitalism, companies can grow until they reach a critical mass where they're in a position to block any competition and stay aloft while releasing inferior products.

In the event that a number of companies become so good at producing what consumers demand, this should not be considered an example of a flaw in the system. They are, as previously stated, efficiently producing what consumers demand. Because this is happening, it may not be profitable (or necessary) for other companies to enter that market. They might enter a more profitable market where goods/services are not being produced as efficiently instead.

But even if there were companies in a given market producing so-called "inferior" goods, then said market may look more profitable and promising to enter. But calling a product "inferior" does not make much sense. People will buy that which they value more than they value something else for the same cost. Whether it is inferior to you is irrelevant, because you do not speak for the varying levels of subjective values in people.

Not to mention that these companies can actually dictate the flow of culture within a country.

I've seen you post about this in the past. Could you elaborate?

'(Note I said proportionately. I still believe in taxes. And by producing profit, you are obviously producing goods/services. Thus, those who are truly unable to work who need taxes still benefit from your profit.) '

If you classify thieves as those who only benefit from the use of money, then I submit to you that everyone who takes tax money is a thief by your very definition since they do not put effort into that money and therefore only receive the benefits of it.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Not to mention that these companies can actually dictate the flow of culture within a country.

What dictates a culture is the mass populace which embraces certain aesthetic choices in their products. Was Pokemon, a mass culture phenomena, popular simply because companies said it was? Did the creators of Pokemon come on the television and openly announce this? Companies just react to the preferences of consumers. Kids witnessed a product, liked it and demanded more of it. The level of interest elevated it to pop culture.

Also why is this topic assuming that morality is subjective right off the bat? I hope people can realize the difference between morality and aesthetics.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

'(Note I said proportionately. I still believe in taxes. And by producing profit, you are obviously producing goods/services. Thus, those who are truly unable to work who need taxes still benefit from your profit.) '

If you classify thieves as those who only benefit from the use of money, then I submit to you that everyone who takes tax money is a thief by your very definition since they do not put effort into that money and therefore only receive the benefits of it.

When tax money is used to produce and not just sustain government and it's officials, taxes are just an economic trade-off. Having some socialized systems in place benefit society as a whole without violating people's rights. If I know that, should I somehow lose my leg in an accident, there will be taxes granted to me to operate on my leg should I be unable to do so otherwise. Even if I am perfectly healthy, there is security in knowing that, should that ever change, there is a system in place for me. I pay the taxes and my payment recieved back is security and soundness of mind. (There is the added bonus of me now being able to re-enter the work force should I be healed sufficiently.)

Likewise any money spent on rehabilitation is a long term investment to society. Spending money on people who are unable to ever pay back is a slightly different ball game. However, they are not the one's who took the money in the first place. Should they be simply unwilling to produce they are thieves, yes, but not as much as the government... Unless the government doesn't just drain society by doling out taxes in pittance. Unless the government uses taxes a means of production with social programs as only a part of that plan.

Spockman, I somewhat agree with your points. It's just that most capitalists prefer to weaken government, which only makes it less capable of protecting individuals and more susceptible to being influenced by private organizations.

Originally Posted by spockman

On point number two... Yes, there is no individual gain in communism. But there is individual effort. There is individual production. And that is being stolen from the workers by communism.

Unless you live in dictatorship-style communism (which in itself is quite the oxymoron), a communist individual should realize and accept that most of his work will go to communal gain. His work is not stolen, he gives it freely. He does so because he believes that the end result for him (and everybody else) will be better than had he simply worked for personal gain.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

In the event that a number of companies become so good at producing what consumers demand, this should not be considered an example of a flaw in the system. They are, as previously stated, efficiently producing what consumers demand. Because this is happening, it may not be profitable (or necessary) for other companies to enter that market. They might enter a more profitable market where goods/services are not being produced as efficiently instead.

But even if there were companies in a given market producing so-called "inferior" goods, then said market may look more profitable and promising to enter. But calling a product "inferior" does not make much sense. People will buy that which they value more than they value something else for the same cost. Whether it is inferior to you is irrelevant, because you do not speak for the varying levels of subjective values in people.

I was thinking especially of companies that block upstarts that use new technologies which would require a different kind of infrastructure. The energy sector is a good example. We could've had decent electric cars over a decade ago (which would undeniably have turned into a better product for consumers), but the titan oil companies and car manufacturers stood too much to lose and used various methods to block their development. Another example off the top of my head is the backers of direct current in the 19th century which delayed (using rather extreme methods) the implementation of superior alternating current. Companies can also use misinformation to mislead the public about the quality of their products versus others.

I've seen you post about this in the past. Could you elaborate?

Basically I'm talking about the fostering of consumerism and materialism as well as the entry of brand names into everyday speech and media. There was a time (not so long ago) when a people's culture revolved around certain regional activities or traditions or forms of art. Now it seems that all that matters is stuff or emulating the lifestyle of others. It's more of a personal grievance than anything else. There's so much more to life, and it bugs me to see lots of people buy into this extremely commercial lifestyle where others basically tell you what to do.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

What dictates a culture is the mass populace which embraces certain aesthetic choices in their products. Was Pokemon, a mass culture phenomena, popular simply because companies said it was? Did the creators of Pokemon come on the television and openly announce this? Companies just react to the preferences of consumers. Kids witnessed a product, liked it and demanded more of it. The level of interest elevated it to pop culture.

See, you immediately associate culture to products. I'd rather the two be as separated as church and state. I can guarantee you that the makers of pokemon did their research as to what designs/features would be most attractive and sellable to the target age group. They also knew how to market their product and fine-tune it once the ball got rolling. It wasn't just "chance" that made pokemon a hit.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Spockman, I somewhat agree with your points. It's just that most capitalists prefer to weaken government, which only makes it less capable of protecting individuals and more susceptible to being influenced by private organizations.

I wish the government stayed out of certain areas more where they act in ways that I find to be the same type of actions of a common highwaymen. I wish they would not use tax dollars to trade favors instead of trade effort and services, making me trade my tax dollar for not an ounce of production. I wish that. But I do not wish for the government to be weak. Despite sharing many of their moral stances, I am not a libertarian for the reasons that you've already said. I agree that in a no government/weak government, free market will not survive if massive corporationism crushes it, (and corporationism would probably win.)

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Unless you live in dictatorship-style communism (which in itself is quite the oxymoron), a communist individual should realize and accept that most of his work will go to communal gain. His work is not stolen, he gives it freely. He does so because he believes that the end result for him (and everybody else) will be better than had he simply worked for personal gain.

This comes down to a different definition of thievery. You see thievery, (I think anyways, correct me if I am wrong,) as the taking of someone's goods/time without their consent. While that is theivery even by my definition, I would argue that it goes deeper than that. Thievery is also using someone else's production in a way that does not allow them to advance and gain money- thus benefiting from someone else's work more than the worker. One could argue that the worker does benefit from his work indirectly. By harvesting more grain, for example, he will get a bit more grain than he would have otherwise since his grain is spread through the entire nation.

But that would only be if you view money as a placeholder for resources. Money is actually a placeholder for production and effort in itself, not the end result of the effort, (goods.) Do you see the irreconcilable difference between these two perceptions of money? One views money as a means to an end, mine views money as the end to which the means of work entitles the worker to. One views money as a measurement of someone's standard of living. Mine views money as a measurment of that persons traded effort. What is left after the trading of effort, then? What goods and services did the person put into the world, what did he take out, and how much did he net?

That is money to me and so through my view of economic ethics, which entitles someone to recieve from the system proportionate to what theyt made for the system, communism can be nothing but a system run by lechers and robbers.

I think if you offer more value than you charge, then it's fine, because you're adding to what's out there overall, rather than just taking. All of this is very subjective, of course.

Originally Posted by spockman

When tax money is used to produce and not just sustain government and it's officials, taxes are just an economic trade-off. Having some socialized systems in place benefit society as a whole without violating people's rights.

But the act of taxation is a violation of people's rights.

Originally Posted by spockman

If I know that, should I somehow lose my leg in an accident, there will be taxes granted to me to operate on my leg should I be unable to do so otherwise.

Well I call that 'savings.' People are perfectly capable of having savings. I think the government's inflation isn't helping the matter but that is a separate issue. I would even go so far as charity and help groups. However, if you are talking about NOT violating others rights then you can't involve taxation because it is compulsory.

Originally Posted by spockman

Even if I am perfectly healthy, there is security in knowing that, should that ever change, there is a system in place for me. I pay the taxes and my payment recieved back is security and soundness of mind. (There is the added bonus of me now being able to re-enter the work force should I be healed sufficiently.)

Let us be honest, what you are paying now is not going to some savings fund that you will get if you are hurt. It is going to other individuals.

Originally Posted by spockman

Likewise any money spent on rehabilitation is a long term investment to society. Spending money on people who are unable to ever pay back is a slightly different ball game. However, they are not the one's who took the money in the first place. Should they be simply unwilling to produce they are thieves, yes, but not as much as the government... Unless the government doesn't just drain society by doling out taxes in pittance. Unless the government uses taxes a means of production with social programs as only a part of that plan.

If you wish to setup a savings for the children of the world or rehabilitated individuals then I would first congratulate you on your noble desires/actions, help if I could etc. However, the method by which this is supposedly done today, through government taxation, is not noble or just. I'm not saying everyone needs to be scourge and horde their funds. Dispense them how you see fit. What I am against is this compulsory nature behind taxation.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

See, you immediately associate culture to products. I'd rather the two be as separated as church and state. I can guarantee you that the makers of pokemon did their research as to what designs/features would be most attractive and sellable to the target age group. They also knew how to market their product and fine-tune it once the ball got rolling. It wasn't just "chance" that made pokemon a hit.

And if these researchers did that...so what? The choice of having or not having the product is still up to the consumer. It is not as if they are incapable of making decisions as to what is and isn't best for them. And you're right, it wasn't 'chance' that made pokemon a hit. What made it a hit was the consumer's goal to satisfy some desire to have it. Perhaps it was to please their child, perhaps they like to collect little oddities, perhaps they just associate themselves with the animal. An aggregate as to what desire consumers had when purchasing this product is impossible. Concerning your comment about culture, a great deal of pop culture is mass produced products. There is a correlation between mass produced items and popularity. Not always, but most of the time. In a world of such diversity, I can only think of products as having mass appeal. Perhaps some ethical and philosophical ideas also and certainly we can talk about that if you so desire. However, in discussing how companies 'supposedly' dictate culture, don't you think it only natural that we first discuss consumer products since that is what companies manufacture and trade in the global market? You seem to be thinking I am making your case that we are all affluent materialists by simply retorting to your comments which isn't the case at all.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

But the act of taxation is a violation of people's rights.



Well I call that 'savings.' People are perfectly capable of having savings. I think the government's inflation isn't helping the matter but that is a separate issue. I would even go so far as charity and help groups. However, if you are talking about NOT violating others rights then you can't involve taxation because it is compulsory.




Let us be honest, what you are paying now is not going to some savings fund that you will get if you are hurt. It is going to other individuals.



If you wish to setup a savings for the children of the world or rehabilitated individuals then I would first congratulate you on your noble desires/actions, help if I could etc. However, the method by which this is supposedly done today, through government taxation, is not noble or just. I'm not saying everyone needs to be scourge and horde their funds. Dispense them how you see fit. What I am against is this compulsory nature behind taxation.

No, taxation is not a violation of other's rights. As long as taxation is a trade. Yes, it is compulsory. That is necessary for taxation to work and taxes are necessary to have a government and government is necessary to have a proper society. What I am paying in taxes, some of it is a violation of my rights. Because a decent chunk of what I pay is not turned around and used productively. But as long as taxes are providing services to society equal to what is given in, and people recieve money directly proportionate to their production, taxes are not a violation of rights because it isn't stealing. It is a trade.

It may not be a voluntary trade, but this really is an issue of practicality. Do you not like having police, a military, a fire department, paved roads with no toll, laws? How can an establishment exist without taxes? And, if it can't, how can a stable society based on the virtue of money last very long in an anarchy?

Originally Posted by spockman

No, taxation is not a violation of other's rights. As long as taxation is a trade. Yes, it is compulsory. That is necessary for taxation to work and taxes are necessary to have a government and government is necessary to have a proper society. What I am paying in taxes, some of it is a violation of my rights. Because a decent chunk of what I pay is not turned around and used productively. But as long as taxes are providing services to society equal to what is given in, and people recieve money directly proportionate to their production, taxes are not a violation of rights because it isn't stealing. It is a trade.

It may not be a voluntary trade, but this really is an issue of practicality. Do you not like having police, a military, a fire department, paved roads with no toll, laws? How can an establishment exist without taxes? And, if it can't, how can a stable society based on the virtue of money last very long in an anarchy?

Well now you are speaking incoherently. If a highway takes my wallet, that is trade ( my wallet for my life ) therefore according to your definition it is not a violation of my rights that I am robbed by this individual. Also I don't think, either empirically or apriori, that society necessitates taxation. Society existed before the concept of taxation came to fruition and there is nothing concerning society, mass interaction between individual actors, that demands taxation. I really don't understand your post though. You say that taxation is not a violation of rights...yet say that paying taxes involves some violation of rights. Which is it? A violation or not? Also please realize that being against taxation does not a fortiori mean I am against police/firefighter/construction services. I naturally propound the privatization of such services.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well now you are speaking incoherently. If a highway takes my wallet, that is trade ( my wallet for my life ) therefore according to your definition it is not a violation of my rights that I am robbed by this individual. Also I don't think, either empirically or apriori, that society necessitates taxation. Society existed before the concept of taxation came to fruition and there is nothing concerning society, mass interaction between individual actors, that demands taxation. I really don't understand your post though. You say that taxation is not a violation of rights...yet say that paying taxes involves some violation of rights. Which is it? A violation or not? Also please realize that being against taxation does not a fortiori mean I am against police/firefighter/construction services. I naturally propound the privatization of such services.

There is a massive difference between a highway man and a tax collector in their truest sense. A highway man takes your wallet and gives you nothing in return, not producing but taking your work. (Money is a stand in for work more than it is a stand in for goods. The highway man has taken your work and offered you nothing in return that you didn't already have.) The tax collector CAN be a thief, but assuming your government produces with your money and serves it's function it is providing a very necessary service.

And sure, there were societies before taxes. But unless the society was empirical, and stole resources from lesser nations, it was anarchy before taxes. (Or else the government directly owned the profit making industries, which is far worse than taxation.) Anarchy does not exclude society. It just excludes government. I submit to you that if you are against taxes and are not an anarchist, you should be an imperialist OR a proponent of de-privatization. I know you are not the latter. Are you an anarchist or imperialist? If not, please, HOW can society without taxes work? And how would it not divuge into corporationism, for that matter? (Unless you are a proponent of corporationism.)

Addressing some of your points I do not think you really tried to read it very clearly. I qualified all my points, some of those qualifiers you ignored. For example, you say that my post contradicts itself by saying that the concept of taxes is not a violation of rights- yet I then say taxes violate my rights. Read this again.

What I am paying in taxes, some of it is a violation of my rights. Because a decent chunk of what I pay is not turned around and used productively.

Using basic logic, one could deduce that I would not think the taxes I pay are violating my rights if the taxes were used to produce. In the U.S. many of my taxes are used to trade favors. This does not mean the concept of taxes is flawed.

You don't like public service, apparently. Well, unless you are a staunch imperialist completely scratch off the military. There is no profit in it without imperialism. Say goodbye to Border Security in general. Then you will have to pay large amounts to drive down highways, accept police services, and have your house put out. Further, who will regulate police services? Who decides what the laws are? The cop company? Do they arbitrarily enforce the paying of deals and regulations they make up, then charge people to protect them? People who have no way to fight against it unless they make a civil defense force with more guns? We are back into a society of robbers again! Anti-trust laws are gone. They were unnecessary back in the earliest civilizations. But the communication age has made anti-trust laws a necessity.

Who issues money? Where will money be accepted? Will it have a set value, or a standard to back it up? Without the issuing of currencey, a society can and fairly likely will lay it's foundation on thieves. A society built on true money, however, cannot be built on thieves. It never will. It is impossible. Who's voucher's will count as trade symbolizing effort and production? I do not see how a country without taxes can exist with the general rights of the populace being upheld. Anarcho-capitalism is not the best or truest form of capitalism.

Originally Posted by spockman

There is a massive difference between a highway man and a tax collector in their truest sense. A highway man takes your wallet and gives you nothing in return, not producing but taking your work. (Money is a stand in for work more than it is a stand in for goods. The highway man has taken your work and offered you nothing in return that you didn't already have.) The tax collector CAN be a thief, but assuming your government produces with your money and serves it's function it is providing a very necessary service.

Well who specifies what the return of the tax money is sufficient? Also who specifies whether or not the service is necessary?

Originally Posted by spockman

And sure, there were societies before taxes. But unless the society was empirical, and stole resources from lesser nations, it was anarchy before taxes. (Or else the government directly owned the profit making industries, which is far worse than taxation.) Anarchy does not exclude society. It just excludes government. I submit to you that if you are against taxes and are not an anarchist, you should be an imperialist OR a proponent of de-privatization. I know you are not the latter. Are you an anarchist or imperialist? If not, please, HOW can society without taxes work? And how would it not divuge into corporationism, for that matter? (Unless you are a proponent of corporationism.)

I'm not sure if tribal chiefs would be considered anarchistic. Perhaps another topic. Why does it follow that I cannot be an anarchist and against taxation? I am against coercive rule with the caveat of natural rights and self defensive measures. If you wish to get technical, are defensive actions coercive? Sure. Are they justified by reason? Yes. Again though I am drifting into another topic, a theory of human rights. How would a world not divulge into a world of corporatism? Well I submit to you that we are already in such a world. Such an event was made possible by government because the traditional meaning of monopoly was a government writ of exclusivity on the sale of products. So monopolies are, traditionally as well as logically, a product of government inteference in the market place. Specific through tariffs, subsidies, cronyism etc. Therefore under a market with actual free competition, not this American protectionism BS that many conservatives spew, monopolies are an impossibility. Monopoly being defined as the inability to enter into a given economic area of supply or service. Of course not by the simple number of corporations in a given area which is the claim of the Chicago school who have found a perfect competition model through the mysticism of number equations.

Originally Posted by spockman

Addressing some of your points I do not think you really tried to read it very clearly. I qualified all my points, some of those qualifiers you ignored. For example, you say that my post contradicts itself by saying that the concept of taxes is not a violation of rights- yet I then say taxes violate my rights. Read this again. Using basic logic, one could deduce that I would not think the taxes I pay are violating my rights if the taxes were used to produce. In the U.S. many of my taxes are used to trade favors. This does not mean the concept of taxes is flawed.

Well I consider that an incorrect definition of taxation. What you speak of is individual taste to help others through economic forces, what I call 'charity.'

Originally Posted by spockman

You don't like public service, apparently. Well, unless you are a staunch imperialist completely scratch off the military. There is no profit in it without imperialism.

I would love to demilitarize the United States. We'd save billions.

Originally Posted by spockman

Say goodbye to Border Security in general.

I'm for open borders.

Originally Posted by spockman

Then you will have to pay large amounts to drive down highways, accept police services, and have your house put out.

Well answer this: Are products more expensive or less expensive if a monopoly is in control? The government is a monopoly on these services you speak of so why do you assume that prices will go up if competition concerning these services is allowed?

Originally Posted by spockman

Further, who will regulate police services? Who decides what the laws are?

Well this is a question that has split libertarians. Should we have universality of the theory of natural rights or should we populate enclaves which hold laws we like? I favor the universality approach because most of the world already has laws against murder, thievery, rape etc.

Originally Posted by spockman

The cop company? Do they arbitrarily enforce the paying of deals and regulations they make up, then charge people to protect them?

Again you have to ask yourself, if there are corporations competing for the consumer dollar, then why do you assume they will make bizarre regulations or hike up prices to levels that the masses cannot pay?

Originally Posted by spockman

People who have no way to fight against it unless they make a civil defense force with more guns? We are back into a society of robbers again! Anti-trust laws are gone. They were unnecessary back in the earliest civilizations. But the communication age has made anti-trust laws a necessity.

Anti-trust laws are a joke. Do you think it a mere coincidence that the Sherman anti-trust act was passed during an age where intellectuals were propounding cartelization of businesses and proto-fascist ideas?

Originally Posted by spockman

Who issues money? Where will money be accepted? Will it have a set value, or a standard to back it up? Without the issuing of currencey, a society can and fairly likely will lay it's foundation on thieves. A society built on true money, however, cannot be built on thieves. It never will. It is impossible. Who's voucher's will count as trade symbolizing effort and production? I do not see how a country without taxes can exist with the general rights of the populace being upheld. Anarcho-capitalism is not the best or truest form of capitalism.

This is a good question. Money is simply a medium of exchange that the market process can handle. That is how money actually forms. I have whole podcasts which can explain it better then I on this subject. I only do economics as a hobby, I'm actually a historian, so forgive me for not having a silver tongue in that area.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well who specifies what the return of the tax money is sufficient? Also who specifies whether or not the service is necessary?

0.) Well who specifies what the return of the tax money is sufficient? Also who specifies whether or not the service is necessary?

1.) I'm not sure if tribal chiefs would be considered anarchistic. Perhaps another topic. Why does it follow that I cannot be an anarchist and against taxation? I am against coercive rule with the caveat of natural rights and self defensive measures. If you wish to get technical, are defensive actions coercive? Sure. Are they justified by reason? Yes. Again though I am drifting into another topic, a theory of human rights. How would a world not divulge into a world of corporatism? Well I submit to you that we are already in such a world. Such an event was made possible by government because the traditional meaning of monopoly was a government writ of exclusivity on the sale of products. So monopolies are, traditionally as well as logically, a product of government inteference in the market place. Specific through tariffs, subsidies, cronyism etc. Therefore under a market with actual free competition, not this American protectionism BS that many conservatives spew, monopolies are an impossibility. Monopoly being defined as the inability to enter into a given economic area of supply or service. Of course not by the simple number of corporations in a given area which is the claim of the Chicago school who have found a perfect competition model through the mysticism of number equations.

2.) Well I consider that an incorrect definition of taxation. What you speak of is individual taste to help others through economic forces, what I call 'charity.'

3.) I would love to demilitarize the United States. We'd save billions.

4.) I'm for open borders.

5.) Well answer this: Are products more expensive or less expensive if a monopoly is in control? The government is a monopoly on these services you speak of so why do you assume that prices will go up if competition concerning these services is allowed?

6.) Well this is a question that has split libertarians. Should we have universality of the theory of natural rights or should we populate enclaves which hold laws we like? I favor the universality approach because most of the world already has laws against murder, thievery, rape etc.

7.) Again you have to ask yourself, if there are corporations competing for the consumer dollar, then why do you assume they will make bizarre regulations or hike up prices to levels that the masses cannot pay?

8.) Anti-trust laws are a joke. Do you think it a mere coincidence that the Sherman anti-trust act was passed during an age where intellectuals were propounding cartelization of businesses and proto-fascist ideas?

9.) This is a good question. Money is simply a medium of exchange that the market process can handle. That is how money actually forms. I have whole podcasts which can explain it better then I on this subject. I only do economics as a hobby, I'm actually a historian, so forgive me for not having a silver tongue in that area.

And here we see some of the biggest differences between libertarianism and objectivismn. That is, how or if a government exists. While the layman often sees very little difference, we know that there is. I actually agree with a lot of what you think. But while my voter's registration may be libertarian, I really am not one.

0.) Well, in a system without so much favors swapping and unearned profit reaping, the government would be encouraged to earn more. The more they produced, the more they could strengthen the economy, the more taxes they would gain, the higher their paychecks. Capitalism could still drive officials.

1.) I agree that monopoly laws are stupid. I do not consider anti-trust laws real monopoly laws, though. And froget the U.S. Anti-Trust laws. Other countries have them and they have them not in conjunction with monopoly laws.

2.) No, it is not charity. While I am willing to pay my taxes, I would not pay so much if it was not compulsory. Besides, I am not willing for purely altruistic means. I want taxes payed for my own benefit. How is this charity?

3.) I would love to do it as well were it feasible. But I consider it somewhat naive to think that another group, (corporations are not limited in their goals in an anarchy,) would not then become the power through force of guns or para-military and essentially become the government. It would eventually happen. Someone would assert themselves and become, if not the official establishment, an unofficial one. I would prefer an official one with a constitution and a legal process.

4.) Then forget border security as far as immigration goes. Consider border security for other nations wanting your crap.

5.) Because right now, we only pay for highways through our taxes, other than that most of them are completely free. The government is able to keep them free largely because they know that highways increase overall revenue and so increase taxes. The roads pay for themselves by the virtue of a strong market. If another group were to build them,this would not be a motivation. Pure and immediate profit would be. So you will now be paying for those roads whenever you ride them. Otherwise, no-one will build them.

6.) Well, there is no establishment, so you can have your philosophy schools and universalistic approach. It counts for nothing. Whoever has the biggest guns chooses all that. And until you can reconcile this- I won't blink twice at anarchy of any kind.

7.) No one will hike up The police institution is not one designed for profit in teh status quote. It upholds profit, and so makes itself worthwhile to the government. But just as I said earlier, no company will perform a service to increase market strength in general. They will do it to make a profit. So cops will enforce payment of all their services much greater than right now. That is obvious. AND how can you privatize a police force? How could you possibly do that? At least, do it and not have some arbitrary psuedo government.

8.) Then ignore anti-trust laws. There are far worse problems.

9.) Sure. But money also has to be backed up by someone the market universally trusts.

Originally Posted by spockman

And here we see some of the biggest differences between libertarianism and objectivismn. That is, how or if a government exists. While the layman often sees very little difference, we know that there is. I actually agree with a lot of what you think. But while my voter's registration may be libertarian, I really am not one.

0.) Well, in a system without so much favors swapping and unearned profit reaping, the government would be encouraged to earn more. The more they produced, the more they could strengthen the economy, the more taxes they would gain, the higher their paychecks. Capitalism could still drive officials.

Firstly, two sentiments must be obtained to have capitalism, I believe you are referring to free-markets, which include but are not excluded to:
1. The trade/sale of good and services between two voluntary parties without third party interference.
2. Competition

The government can not and never will meet these two sentiments in order to pursue a course of free market capitalism because it interferes with voluntary trade and is not subject to competition. It is a monopoly. If a government were to open up the ability to provide what we call 'public services' today then it would cease to be a government and be regulated to the status of corporation.

Originally Posted by spockman

1.) I agree that monopoly laws are stupid. I do not consider anti-trust laws real monopoly laws, though. And froget the U.S. Anti-Trust laws. Other countries have them and they have them not in conjunction with monopoly laws.

Ok so we agree that 'Anti-trust laws' are a mistake.

Originally Posted by spockman

2.) No, it is not charity. While I am willing to pay my taxes, I would not pay so much if it was not compulsory. Besides, I am not willing for purely altruistic means. I want taxes payed for my own benefit. How is this charity?

Well every action is a act of self-interest. Every action is the application of means to ends and all action is aimed at removing a felt unease. If you think the definition of charity is pure altruism then charity can never exist. Also, I don't see how you not paying as much is some sort of argument. You are basically admitting that you are being coerced against your will to give more then you normally would. How is that just?

Originally Posted by spockman

3.) I would love to do it as well were it feasible. But I consider it somewhat naive to think that another group, (corporations are not limited in their goals in an anarchy,) would not then become the power through force of guns or para-military and essentially become the government. It would eventually happen. Someone would assert themselves and become, if not the official establishment, an unofficial one. I would prefer an official one with a constitution and a legal process.

Well two arguments against that. One we already reside in an environment of psuedo-legitimacy in the claims of the government. It has been establish through generations of intellectual 'validation' of government interference in our lives. If you think that is silly then I would ask why the government thinks it can tell us what is and isn't good for us to eat. If we are to establish a society in which anarchism is reigning, why assume that the whole of society will suddenly change its mind and go back to having a government? And even if some did, what legitimate claim would they have against people who don't want a government? And even if people all suddenly wanted to have a government, how is that any different then just going back to what we have today?

Originally Posted by spockman

4.) Then forget border security as far as immigration goes. Consider border security for other nations wanting your crap.

They can trade and do commerce with the people who reside here. Now if you have security concerns, please realize that a we know a priori that free markets product better goods and services that better meet consumer demand compared to a monopoly market which produces bloated prices and inefficient goods. A free market on defense would naturally be better then a monopolized one.

Originally Posted by spockman

5.) Because right now, we only pay for highways through our taxes, other than that most of them are completely free. The government is able to keep them free largely because they know that highways increase overall revenue and so increase taxes. The roads pay for themselves by the virtue of a strong market. If another group were to build them,this would not be a motivation. Pure and immediate profit would be. So you will now be paying for those roads whenever you ride them. Otherwise, no-one will build them.

Well you admit that we pay for roads. If we didn't have taxation, then I would only be paying for roads that I utilized in the first place. I would not be paying for the roads of other states. Therefore, right off the bat the price for transportation would be cheaper and this isn't even taking into account what prices would do during competition between companies. Not all business venture aim at short term profit. In fact I know of several service industries which during the first years are either breaking even or at a lose.

Originally Posted by spockman

6.) Well, there is no establishment, so you can have your philosophy schools and universalistic approach. It counts for nothing. Whoever has the biggest guns chooses all that. And until you can reconcile this- I won't blink twice at anarchy of any kind.

Well you already propound a system in which the biggest gun is what chooses all [ the government ]. I'm always confused as to why people who propound liberty, who always want more liberty and less government interference, suddenly go bonkers over the full realization of what they believe. If you believe that things get worse when more liberty is opened...why do you advocate liberty? Society is not some jungle boy which can only be held back by government. Even if it were, why assume that the government, which I'm guessing you want through popular sovereignty, is not vulnerable to this sentiment? Does government, which is full of people like us, have an immunity to barbarism? If not, why have people in such power?

Originally Posted by spockman

7.) No one will hike up The police institution is not one designed for profit in teh status quote. It upholds profit, and so makes itself worthwhile to the government. But just as I said earlier, no company will perform a service to increase market strength in general. They will do it to make a profit. So cops will enforce payment of all their services much greater than right now. That is obvious. AND how can you privatize a police force? How could you possibly do that? At least, do it and not have some arbitrary psuedo government.

Sorry but you have to be clearer in what you mean by the police institution comment. Also, realize that profit is a sign of strength in the market. That is what coordinates supply/demand. Let us presume that frizbee profit reaches a new high. What does that mean? Obviously that consumers are buying frizbees. However, this signals other companies that there is a profit to be made if they are so inclined to pursue it. If they do, they enter the market trying to get there share, naturally lowering the price margin in the process or increasing the quality, which brings in competition over the profit. The higher the profit, the more inclined a corporation is likely to get involved, the greater the strength of the market place. Now how can you privatize the police force is by viewing them like any other service based market. Say you are apart of the neighborhood home owners association and you are worried about crime. Why not hire a police officer to walk the streets during the day? Or have a patrol car do its round by night. Perhaps you want serious protection from a criminal gang, why not hire police as personal bodyguards? I define government as an institution which pursues and sometimes maintains a territorial monopoly on legal and protection services. So if the government today allowed for the privatization of courts and cops, there would cease to be a government in this country.

Originally Posted by spockman

8.) Then ignore anti-trust laws. There are far worse problems.

I just want to be holistic, unlike conservatives who want to cut spending to social programs yet want to increase spending on one of the biggest welfare systems [ the military ] in our country.

Originally Posted by spockman

9.) Sure. But money also has to be backed up by someone the market universally trusts.

True and it could be anything. It could be metals, livestock, plants etc. History has chosen gold and silver. I don't see anything right now to change that status quo.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

1.) Firstly, two sentiments must be obtained to have capitalism, I believe you are referring to free-markets, which include but are not excluded to:
1. The trade/sale of good and services between two voluntary parties without third party interference.
2. Competition

The government can not and never will meet these two sentiments in order to pursue a course of free market capitalism because it interferes with voluntary trade and is not subject to competition. It is a monopoly. If a government were to open up the ability to provide what we call 'public services' today then it would cease to be a government and be regulated to the status of corporation.


2.) Ok so we agree that 'Anti-trust laws' are a mistake.


3.) Well every action is a act of self-interest. Every action is the application of means to ends and all action is aimed at removing a felt unease. If you think the definition of charity is pure altruism then charity can never exist. Also, I don't see how you not paying as much is some sort of argument. You are basically admitting that you are being coerced against your will to give more then you normally would. How is that just?



4.) Well two arguments against that. One we already reside in an environment of psuedo-legitimacy in the claims of the government. It has been establish through generations of intellectual 'validation' of government interference in our lives. If you think that is silly then I would ask why the government thinks it can tell us what is and isn't good for us to eat. If we are to establish a society in which anarchism is reigning, why assume that the whole of society will suddenly change its mind and go back to having a government? And even if some did, what legitimate claim would they have against people who don't want a government? And even if people all suddenly wanted to have a government, how is that any different then just going back to what we have today?



5.) They can trade and do commerce with the people who reside here. Now if you have security concerns, please realize that a we know a priori that free markets product better goods and services that better meet consumer demand compared to a monopoly market which produces bloated prices and inefficient goods. A free market on defense would naturally be better then a monopolized one.



6.) Well you admit that we pay for roads. If we didn't have taxation, then I would only be paying for roads that I utilized in the first place. I would not be paying for the roads of other states. Therefore, right off the bat the price for transportation would be cheaper and this isn't even taking into account what prices would do during competition between companies. Not all business venture aim at short term profit. In fact I know of several service industries which during the first years are either breaking even or at a lose.



7.) Well you already propound a system in which the biggest gun is what chooses all [ the government ]. I'm always confused as to why people who propound liberty, who always want more liberty and less government interference, suddenly go bonkers over the full realization of what they believe. If you believe that things get worse when more liberty is opened...why do you advocate liberty? Society is not some jungle boy which can only be held back by government. Even if it were, why assume that the government, which I'm guessing you want through popular sovereignty, is not vulnerable to this sentiment? Does government, which is full of people like us, have an immunity to barbarism? If not, why have people in such power?



8.) Sorry but you have to be clearer in what you mean by the police institution comment. Also, realize that profit is a sign of strength in the market. That is what coordinates supply/demand. Let us presume that frizbee profit reaches a new high. What does that mean? Obviously that consumers are buying frizbees. However, this signals other companies that there is a profit to be made if they are so inclined to pursue it. If they do, they enter the market trying to get there share, naturally lowering the price margin in the process or increasing the quality, which brings in competition over the profit. The higher the profit, the more inclined a corporation is likely to get involved, the greater the strength of the market place. Now how can you privatize the police force is by viewing them like any other service based market. Say you are apart of the neighborhood home owners association and you are worried about crime. Why not hire a police officer to walk the streets during the day? Or have a patrol car do its round by night. Perhaps you want serious protection from a criminal gang, why not hire police as personal bodyguards? I define government as an institution which pursues and sometimes maintains a territorial monopoly on legal and protection services. So if the government today allowed for the privatization of courts and cops, there would cease to be a government in this country.



9.) I just want to be holistic, unlike conservatives who want to cut spending to social programs yet want to increase spending on one of the biggest welfare systems [ the military ] in our country.



10.) True and it could be anything. It could be metals, livestock, plants etc. History has chosen gold and silver. I don't see anything right now to change that status quo.

1.)

2.) Perhaps American anti-trust laws. But they can be implemented without advocating a ban on all monopoly. And although not too long ago Canada was a terrible country as far as it's economic policies go, it's current anti-trust laws and it's general attitude towards monopoly is better than the U.S. I like Canada.

3.) You are right. It is not just that I have to pay taxes which go to politicians who use my effort and work to trade favors and pull. However, I am fine paying certain taxes. So it is not the general concept that I am against.

4.) Well, for one, a single group with the most power could be the government that rules the people. And if we were willing to go back to a government, we would lose much of the progress and rights and systems of checks and balance that many nations have now. In many ways, these nations advocate indirect thievery. But the risk of some establishment employing a more direct kind of thievery is too high.

5.) I agree with the first half of this point. But please, tell me how a free market could ever come about on defence unless imperialism was employed or unless they mandated a form of taxation from everyone that they protected? How else could a military profit?

6.) That's a good point. And like I said earlier, I do not believe something can bbe bought for more than it is worth. That is impossible, so road prices would balance out to what they are worth.

7.) First, I think today's government is better than most governments. So, I don't want to play a 'who's in charge' russian roulette. I prefer to stay with the status qoute than have a crap-shoot. So yeah, today's government is based on who has the most guns and is not immune to corruption, but it is less corrupt than it could be. To address your point on liberty and how some proupounders of it become hypocrites... I never said all liberty is good. To quote a hero of mine,

Somebody said let's go out and fight for liberty and so they went and got killed without ever once thinking about liberty. And what kind of liberty were they fighting for anyway? How much liberty and whose idea of liberty? Were they fighting for the liberty of eating free ice cream cones all their lives or for the liberty of robbing anybody they pleased whenever they wanted to or what? You tell a man he can't rob and you take away some of his liberty. You've got to. What the hell does liberty mean anyhow? It's just a word like house or table or any other word. Only it's a special kind of word. A guy says house and he can point to a house to prove it. But a guy says come on let's fight for liberty and he can't show you liberty. He can't prove the thing he's talking about so how in the hell can he be telling you to fight for it?

Of course this is talking about war but the point still stands. A certain amount of liberty has to be restricted or else the rights of others are violated. That's a big difference between libertarians and objectivists. Most libertarians, they will propound a form of anarchism. Whereas an objectivist will likely propound a minarchism.

8.) Eck, I did not proofread this paragraph. Sorry, yeah, I'll be more clear. A privatized police force would have to have it's own regulations and force them on others or else it could do nothing. Who writes these laws? If I am hiring a police officer to be my body guard, where is the line drawn on what I can ask him to do if I pay him enough to do it? Isn't he basically a hired goon? And a privatized court?!? I would, for one, just refuse to acknowledge that it had any hold over my personal liberty. It could be highly immoral, who is to say? There is no due process. And if it still forced it's personal values on me and the way I live my life, than I would say that this is not an anarchy. Because it wouldn't be. Besides, in this case the function of the court would be to make a profit. What, would people pay the courts to punish a criminal they wanted punished? How would anything but killing the poor bastard each and every time someone is convicted be anything but the most profitable?

As far as the point on how a freee market produces the best service, you are preaching to the choir. A privatized military/police force would be more efficient. It just wouldn't be moral.

9.) Agreed, and spending is ludicrous. There is no reason why we should spend nearly as much as the rest of the world combined on our military. Military spending should be significantly cut.

10.) Sure, why not?