The debate "I prefer to manage the wealth that I created instead of the state taxing me and doing it for me" was started by
November 30, 2019, 3:18 am.
16 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Thinkinghead posted 3 arguments, Nemiroff posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 4 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Thinkinghead, jrardin12, Nemiroff, HopeleSSJames3925 and 12 visitors agree.
historybuff, TheExistentialist and 1 visitor disagree.
christianity was also very divided in its early days, i imagine most religions were. today there is no purpose to consolidation of faith, narrative, and power as separation of church and state greatly limits the exercise of that power. however with the state out of the way, it's only a matter of time before the leaders of the faith hold another convention or 3 to build a concise narrative, unify their faiths, and build an institution of scale and power.
this is of course just a possible future, but classically speaking, one needs something to calm and motivate the masses. its likely religion may be encouraged by the wealthy. despite its adversarial power grabs, they keep the masses quiet. again, this is assuming the masses are even needed given the capability of not too distant technology.
true. In this dystopian future religion could take on a more important role. But religion is much more fractured now. There are dozens of branches of christianity in america, each with their own power structure. There is no unified church with the power to push back on the nobility like the catholic church had. Being excommunicated by the Pope had very real consequences for a king. There is nothing any church in america could really do now.
i believe the church may reform. the right, in addition to very laissez faire, is very religious (constituency). as more and more people revert to a poorer, less educated, more limited lifestyle, religion may regain its iron hold on the masses. and use their faith to regain power over the new nobles.
however that power depends on nobles reliance on the masses for labor. with autonation removing any need for commoners, feudalism may not express how bad the situation may devolve.
While the relationship between the church and the laymen nobility was certainly complicated, the church did have alot of power in most catholic countries. They were often in charge of many things we would consider powers of the state such as caring for the poor and education. In many cases they were able to control succession itself as the power to crown kings was seen by many as a power of the church since kings ruled by divine right.
I agree that the anarcho-capitalism that the right seem to want would devolve into something awful that would resemble feudalism. And without an semi independent counter, like the catholic church was a counter to kings, it might be even worse than feudalism.
i dont think the church was an inherent part of the feudalist system, just a seperate fact of reality for every system of that time.
much like some claim socialism leads to dictatorship (something i believe would happen but hasnt as none of those countries were ever actually communist to begin with). anarcho capitalism will inevitably turn into feudalism. with the advent of automation, it may actually become far far worse then any feudalism.
on the otherhand, automation in a socialist society may make it actually functional and utopian.
True; except that even in feudalism, the church acted as the government and collected tithes (i.e. taxes) and exerted some pull over the feudal lords. What he's suggesting is essentially Anarcho-capitalism.
sorry, meant to say feudalism. not imperialism.
aka imperialism with a small nobility and a ton of peasants. that is the end result of laissez faire capitalism. power and wealth will increasingly concentrate in smaller and smaller groups, passed down from generation to generation, until nobility returns.
So if we have a nation without taxes, we necessarily have a anarchist-capitalist society. Without taxes, there is no government.
This means police, fire, military, healthcare, education, etc... are all completely private and unregulated. So only the rich will have a police force. However, not only will they be the only ones with a police force, they can than use it for their own means. They could send their police force in and raid your house for whatever they deem to be contraband....like weapons for example.
If I'm ultra rich, I certainly don't want the poor to be armed. Since the rich also own the education system, they can make it so the poor are never educated. They can make it so that it becomes illegal for poor people to have the internet (because why would the rich give anything to the poor).
The rich can make it illegal for poor people to live in certain areas and concentrate chemicals manufacturing, energy production, etc... In the poor areas. There will of course be no laws, so dumping toxic waste in your community would be perfectly legal. Furthermore, there would be no food safety, so the rich can simply send you all the unsafe and unhealthy food without consequences.
Healthcare would be non-existent for you since the rich will likely require you pay up front (no EMTALA laws since there's no government).
There is also nothing from stopping the rich from exploiting natural resources. Every national park, wilderness, etc... Would be open for exploitation, no animal would be protected from exploitation. As a matter of fact, no human would be protected from exploitation. So slavery would once again become legal. As would torture, murder, rape, etc...
Essentially the existence of everyone except the rich who can afford a private military, private education, private police and fire service etc... would be brutish, violent, and short.
politics are for deciding proper policy.
considering your past grammer im assuming you meant "politicians".
not all government workers are politicians. irs accountants are not politicians. fbi investigators are not politicians. embassadors are not politicians. far too often politicans actually come from the private sector, which champions capitalism (worship of capital, and greed). and you want to trust this greed driven private sector to run rampant and lawlessly?
as for government itself. government does not work for a profit. it usually runs a deficit as service, not return on investment, is its goal. individuals within the government may be self interested, as most people especially in our individualistic capitalist society are... which is why the founding fathers developed a divided government with checks and balances. so that 1 branch seeking to gain absolute power would step on the feet of other branches, who are built to resist.
your 1 sentence claims are quite weak without supporting arguments.
People who work for the government is voluntary. Living in that country is also voluntary. if you want to live in a specific country then you need to pay into the common good of that country. That is how all countries work. And pretty much no one would like the outcome if it didn't work that way.
Governments do want want profits, by definition. As they don't usually run companies and earn any profits. They exist to protect and provide services for their citizens. Companies are the ones that want to exploit you and discard you.
Government also want profits, what do you politics are for?
a government is nos volunteer at all, you are force to be part and pay all they tell you or go to prison.
name a single country that has ever worked that way and succeeded? in all of history.
A volunteer community essentially is exactly what a government is. People decide they want to serve the community so they work for the government to provide services to their fellow citizens such as roads or schools. We, as a society, know that we need those services so we all agree to pitch in and help via taxes. That is what a nation for.
Private enterprise will only do what is profitable. So if a community needs something but there isn't an obvious way to profit from it, then no company will do it. That is why private companies will never be able to provide the same level of service as a government. Private companies only want to profit, the government wants to do what is in the best interest of it's people.
If a road or anything else is need people, enterprise or a private and volunteer community can build it.
how many roads will you choose to build? especially to areas that do not interest you, like small towns with little industry.
how many potholes will you fill?
do you really want wealthy people to have private armed armies instead of public law enforcement.
on certain issues, you really have to think past the tip of your nose. consider the real world implications of your choices.
i mean i totally would prefer to manage all of my own money... but i also like the fact there is a public fund to take of public necessities. i totally wish i myself wouldnt have to contribute, but im glad everyone contributes, and im glad there is enforcement to ensure that. what we need to actually be doing, is keeping an eye on how it is being spent.