Voluntary taxation

Do you think voluntary taxation would improve society?

Yes	13.3%	[ 2 ]
No	66.7%	[ 10 ]
Maybe	20.0%	[ 3 ]
Total Votes:			[ 15 ]

[psycheduck]

Divine_Malevolence

Government would shut down, and we'd begin the descent into third world country territory. Law of the land ceases to be the people and turns into whoever the ******** has the most guns. Which is a horrible state of affairs.
Eventually one of these people with a lot of guns would settle down and create an actual government.
Guaranteed that government would have mandatory taxation. Not so much the ability for anyone outside of a position of power would have the ability to get a say in anything.

Link in case vid doesn't work.

[psycheduck]

Divine_Malevolence

That's really, really dumb.



Like.... Damn.

You do realize how much people try to avoid paying taxes now for no reason other than to avoid paying taxes, right? Here's the thing.
People are greedy.
You make it so that someone like Mitt Romney doesn't have to pay taxes and he won't. Doesn't matter if the government is singlehandedly solving world hunger and it needs just that little bit of cash, ******** wouldn't give a dime.

Please read this post.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

We'd essentially have anarchy leading to feudalism, leading to the regrowth of the nation in spurts, which would weaken us in the long run and open us up to attacks on our enemy's, and cripple our foreign aid, which keeps a lot of the world stabilized.

If America was gone, there'd be a lot of wars popping up due to a lack of fear of our retaliation. Other country's *might* be able to get a grasp on it, but whether they would or the other country's would fear their involvement, I.E. avoid the escalation to war in the first place, is a whole other question.

[Divine_Malevolence]

psycheduck

Quite entertaining and accurate.
Yeah, funny thing about government is that it's what human society trends toward. It starts with violent assholes going around doing whatever the hell they want without anyone to stop them.
And somewhere along the line, a cohesive unit forms. Generally not the marauding assholes, but they can take charge, and it's really no different in the long run whatever takes control when it does.

Eventually, you end up in a society with rules. Boundaries. The less developed ones are dictatorships which turn into monarchies, which are still superior to anarchy due to the stability that was forced into place.
Still not particularly good, but superior.

As time goes on, governing systems advance as the old die off and more reasonable people come into power. Events, like the French Revolution, occur which give governing bodies information on what's effective and what isn't, and as time goes on people realize that keeping a government's citizens happy has numerous benefits.

Eventually, you get a place like the US. Where you can say whatever the ******** you want without fear of reprisal. You can go basically anywhere, do basically anything, and the highly developed governing system will not harm you unless you harm someone else.
Still not perfect, but it's getting there.

After that, there are things that could well be done.
One among them is something outright stupid. Like making taxes optional.
Instantly you'd be throwing away hundreds of thousands of years of social evolution and reverting society back to its absolute worst state.
And for thousands of years, humanity would have to struggle through the worst of its history again, only to end up back here.
If they're lucky.

You'd basically ******** over the entire country in such a way that would just end up reverting things back to the way they are.
That's basically the dumbest possible thing anyone could do.

[The20]

psycheduck

Divine_Malevolence

Government would shut down, and we'd begin the descent into third world country territory. Law of the land ceases to be the people and turns into whoever the ******** has the most guns. Which is a horrible state of affairs.
Eventually one of these people with a lot of guns would settle down and create an actual government.
Guaranteed that government would have mandatory taxation. Not so much the ability for anyone outside of a position of power would have the ability to get a say in anything.

Link in case vid doesn't work.

So what this video says is that government is the natural state of things? So why risk chaos, death and destruction to reinstall the same damn thing again, possibly with a worse outcome?
Libertarianism is an interesting idea ... just like communism. The only difference between communism and libertarianism, as far as i can see, is the question of ownership - and to be honest i think communism makes a lot more sense in that point. Libertarianism still creates a wealthy elite. Communism doesn't.

[Lady Vizsla]

The government would suffer because it would not receive enough money.
There is a chance that few, if anybody would pay taxes resulting in a lawless society.
People with money would have a greater say in government than those without money.
The forms would be difficult to create to adequately have every option that everyone would like. An option for "other" could become out of control in large nations.
This would give the public a greater share in the legislation process, which could lead to what has been called "mob rule".
The extent of freedom is relative to amount of money one has and as disproportionate wealth insures greater freedom, oppression is likely to occur to maintain that system for the sole benefit of the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

[Project 429]

How are you going to keep stupid government campaigns alive unless you force people to pay for them?

Roads? They'd be there. Do you think Walmart is going to ship in their product and not have a way for customers to come buy it? Police and Fire? They'd be there. There are already places in the country where they aren't funded by taxes and in all those places they function better. The private sector police in the foreshadowing exercise that is Detroit don't even carry guns because the private sector actually values human life.

Drug war? That s**t would be hard to pay for. Subsidy programs? Haha, go ******** yourself big corn. Massive welfare entitlements? Get a job, a*****e. International policing? Pay for your own damn bombs, Halliburton.

What people want, they pay for. What people don't they have to have forced upon them.

[psycheduck]

Divine_Malevolence

psycheduck

Quite entertaining and accurate.
Yeah, funny thing about government is that it's what human society trends toward. It starts with violent assholes going around doing whatever the hell they want without anyone to stop them.
And somewhere along the line, a cohesive unit forms. Generally not the marauding assholes, but they can take charge, and it's really no different in the long run whatever takes control when it does.

Eventually, you end up in a society with rules. Boundaries. The less developed ones are dictatorships which turn into monarchies, which are still superior to anarchy due to the stability that was forced into place.
Still not particularly good, but superior.

As time goes on, governing systems advance as the old die off and more reasonable people come into power. Events, like the French Revolution, occur which give governing bodies information on what's effective and what isn't, and as time goes on people realize that keeping a government's citizens happy has numerous benefits.

Eventually, you get a place like the US. Where you can say whatever the ******** you want without fear of reprisal. You can go basically anywhere, do basically anything, and the highly developed governing system will not harm you unless you harm someone else.
Still not perfect, but it's getting there.

After that, there are things that could well be done.
One among them is something outright stupid. Like making taxes optional.
Instantly you'd be throwing away hundreds of thousands of years of social evolution and reverting society back to its absolute worst state.
And for thousands of years, humanity would have to struggle through the worst of its history again, only to end up back here.
If they're lucky.

You'd basically ******** over the entire country in such a way that would just end up reverting things back to the way they are.
That's basically the dumbest possible thing anyone could do.

Ya know, there would probably be benefits from submitting taxes. Like healthcare, social security, "on the grid" security protection from fire and house burglaries, access to public schools, public hospitals, and so on. The government would have to compete with private enterprise to provide better services than they can, by successfully marketing American citizens with various programs, goods, and services earned by paying taxes. The government essentially becomes what it already is: a system of earning rewards determined by a group of individuals. The difference is, it would be a voluntary system, not "you pay or you go to jail." There needs to be alternatives, as competition drives an industry, and civil services are industries of their own.

[Divine_Malevolence]

psycheduck

Ya know, there would probably be benefits from submitting taxes.

So?
People are stupid, and those who aren't are greedy enough to misinform the stupid.
They have been known to demand that the government stop spending and then demand that they not actually cut anything.

People want everything and don't want to pay for any of it.
A good number of them simply wouldn't, which would put a huge burden on those who do. Which wouldn't work, the people who would want to keep it alive wouldn't be able to do so, and s**t would collapse.

It simply wouldn't work. It's not even a naive idea. It's just dumb.

[psycheduck]

The20

psycheduck

Divine_Malevolence

Government would shut down, and we'd begin the descent into third world country territory. Law of the land ceases to be the people and turns into whoever the ******** has the most guns. Which is a horrible state of affairs.
Eventually one of these people with a lot of guns would settle down and create an actual government.
Guaranteed that government would have mandatory taxation. Not so much the ability for anyone outside of a position of power would have the ability to get a say in anything.

Link in case vid doesn't work.

So what this video says is that government is the natural state of things? So why risk chaos, death and destruction to reinstall the same damn thing again, possibly with a worse outcome?
Libertarianism is an interesting idea ... just like communism. The only difference between communism and libertarianism, as far as i can see, is the question of ownership - and to be honest i think communism makes a lot more sense in that point. Libertarianism still creates a wealthy elite. Communism doesn't.

Because if we are intelligent enough to uninstall the powers that control us today, we can do it again tomorrow. And the video exaggerates the likelihood of certain possibilities. He did say it was a worst case scenario. I have faith that humans are sensible enough to not kill each other until private police and courts arise. There will have to be reformations of those as well, but it beats out the alternative of having a government that has the power to kidnap and torture innocent people, send military units to contain riots on any law they wish to enforce, and having virtually unlimited resources (other than brainpower) to create new technologies to get what they want. What they want, as you demonstrate with your arguments based on the assumptions of human nature, is power and wealth. And even as humans in private businesses can become sociopathic and corrupt, so can politicians. So have politicians. It's harder to arrest politicians than it is citizens that are treated as equal, and govern each other.

And no, it is not like communism at all. The system I am promoting would be called a "voluntary minarchy", or a government that provides the most core needs for a society, and is funded through voluntary donations. Without said voluntary donations, the government doesn't exist. If the government doesn't exist, then it must not be considered necessary by the public.

Most libertarians espouse that we can own our property, and many do not believe that any kind of government should exist. I call myself a libertarian, although technically speaking, I am a minarchist. However, I would see the government as simply another business, one that provides many kinds of services for the public.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Divine_Malevolence

People are stupid, and those who aren't are greedy enough to misinform the stupid.

So...who has the right to coerce taxation - the stupid, or the greedy?

[psycheduck]

Divine_Malevolence

psycheduck

Ya know, there would probably be benefits from submitting taxes.

So?
People are stupid, and those who aren't are greedy enough to misinform the stupid.
They have been known to demand that the government stop spending and then demand that they not actually cut anything.

People want everything and don't want to pay for any of it.
A good number of them simply wouldn't, which would put a huge burden on those who do. Which wouldn't work, the people who would want to keep it alive wouldn't be able to do so, and s**t would collapse.

It simply wouldn't work. It's not even a naive idea. It's just dumb.

Stupid people can die for all I care. They're polluting our gene pool. Don't get me wrong, I treat everyone as equal no matter their intellectual capabilities, but yeah. Part of self-actualization is understanding that you need to actively seek ways to improve yourself if you want your lifestyle to change for the better. And if the government was dissolving, it would be widely known information. That's also not true about intellectuals, you're making generalizations.

The government's limited budget would be forced to adjust based on whatever the politicians believe is the most urgent criteria, which would mean that by analyzing demographics, they would have to satisfy as many possible Americans if they want more money. It doesn't mean there is a "burden", it means contributing to the tax pool (at a time when there are very limited taxes) does not offer you much. However, many people still respect and trust the government, or want the services they would be providing taxpayers, so I don't expect there would be too few resources.

[The20]

psycheduck

The20

psycheduck

Divine_Malevolence

Government would shut down, and we'd begin the descent into third world country territory. Law of the land ceases to be the people and turns into whoever the ******** has the most guns. Which is a horrible state of affairs.
Eventually one of these people with a lot of guns would settle down and create an actual government.
Guaranteed that government would have mandatory taxation. Not so much the ability for anyone outside of a position of power would have the ability to get a say in anything.

Link in case vid doesn't work.

So what this video says is that government is the natural state of things? So why risk chaos, death and destruction to reinstall the same damn thing again, possibly with a worse outcome?
Libertarianism is an interesting idea ... just like communism. The only difference between communism and libertarianism, as far as i can see, is the question of ownership - and to be honest i think communism makes a lot more sense in that point. Libertarianism still creates a wealthy elite. Communism doesn't.

Because if we are intelligent enough to uninstall the powers that control us today, we can do it again tomorrow. And the video exaggerates the likelihood of certain possibilities. He did say it was a worst case scenario. I have faith that humans are sensible enough to not kill each other until private police and courts arise. There will have to be reformations of those as well, but it beats out the alternative of having a government that has the power to kidnap and torture innocent people, send military units to contain riots on any law they wish to enforce, and having virtually unlimited resources (other than brainpower) to create new technologies to get what they want. What they want, as you demonstrate with your arguments based on the assumptions of human nature, is power and wealth. And even as humans in private businesses can become sociopathic and corrupt, so can politicians. So have politicians. It's harder to arrest politicians than it is citizens that are treated as equal, and govern each other.

And no, it is not like communism at all. The system I am promoting would be called a "voluntary minarchy", or a government that provides the most core needs for a society, and is funded through voluntary donations. Without said voluntary donations, the government doesn't exist. If the government doesn't exist, then it must not be considered necessary by the public.

Most libertarians espouse that we can own our property, and many do not believe that any kind of government should exist. I call myself a libertarian, although technically speaking, I am a minarchist. However, I would see the government as simply another business, one that provides many kinds of services for the public.

The current system may not be perfect, but we can say with certainty that it works to some degree.
Also, the problem i have with statements like "If the government doesn't exist, then it must not be considered necessary by the public." is that the majority does not necessarily understand or realize the necessity of certain things the government does. Also, people have conflicting opinions about what's necessary and what's not. Need a bypass road? Put it where? One lane? Two lanes? Maybe three? Do we need another school? Where do we put it? Build several instead because people can't agree on one location and spend 10 times what's necessary? I know private schools exist, but what about poor neighborhoods? Want to run a school on donations by big companies? I don't even want to imagine where this would lead ...
Or what about science? If not for the space race, initiated by governments, maybe we wouldn't even be in space yet. This is something that costs billions of dollars, you can't just run that on donations.

I understand your basic premise, that people would take care of what needs to be done, and i don't disagree completely. I do think, however, that people are too shortsighted and narrow minded for this to work on the scale of a country, without a centralized administration.

Do you know what caused the increase of piracy on the Somali coast? Foreign fishing fleets were catching all the fish and left the local fishermen without work, because there was no strong government that could do anything about it. The video is entirely right about gangs of thugs - and if you don't have one of your own the others will walk all over you for their own benefit.

[psycheduck]

The20

psycheduck

The20

psycheduck

Divine_Malevolence

Government would shut down, and we'd begin the descent into third world country territory. Law of the land ceases to be the people and turns into whoever the ******** has the most guns. Which is a horrible state of affairs.
Eventually one of these people with a lot of guns would settle down and create an actual government.
Guaranteed that government would have mandatory taxation. Not so much the ability for anyone outside of a position of power would have the ability to get a say in anything.

Link in case vid doesn't work.

So what this video says is that government is the natural state of things? So why risk chaos, death and destruction to reinstall the same damn thing again, possibly with a worse outcome?
Libertarianism is an interesting idea ... just like communism. The only difference between communism and libertarianism, as far as i can see, is the question of ownership - and to be honest i think communism makes a lot more sense in that point. Libertarianism still creates a wealthy elite. Communism doesn't.

Because if we are intelligent enough to uninstall the powers that control us today, we can do it again tomorrow. And the video exaggerates the likelihood of certain possibilities. He did say it was a worst case scenario. I have faith that humans are sensible enough to not kill each other until private police and courts arise. There will have to be reformations of those as well, but it beats out the alternative of having a government that has the power to kidnap and torture innocent people, send military units to contain riots on any law they wish to enforce, and having virtually unlimited resources (other than brainpower) to create new technologies to get what they want. What they want, as you demonstrate with your arguments based on the assumptions of human nature, is power and wealth. And even as humans in private businesses can become sociopathic and corrupt, so can politicians. So have politicians. It's harder to arrest politicians than it is citizens that are treated as equal, and govern each other.

And no, it is not like communism at all. The system I am promoting would be called a "voluntary minarchy", or a government that provides the most core needs for a society, and is funded through voluntary donations. Without said voluntary donations, the government doesn't exist. If the government doesn't exist, then it must not be considered necessary by the public.

Most libertarians espouse that we can own our property, and many do not believe that any kind of government should exist. I call myself a libertarian, although technically speaking, I am a minarchist. However, I would see the government as simply another business, one that provides many kinds of services for the public.

The current system may not be perfect, but we can say with certainty that it works to some degree.
Also, the problem i have with statements like "If the government doesn't exist, then it must not be considered necessary by the public." is that the majority does not necessarily understand or realize the necessity of certain things the government does. Also, people have conflicting opinions about what's necessary and what's not. Need a bypass road? Put it where? One lane? Two lanes? Maybe three? Do we need another school? Where do we put it? Build several instead because people can't agree on one location and spend 10 times what's necessary? I know private schools exist, but what about poor neighborhoods? Want to run a school on donations by big companies? I don't even want to imagine where this would lead ...
Or what about science? If not for the space race, initiated by governments, maybe we wouldn't even be in space yet. This is something that costs billions of dollars, you can't just run that on donations.

I understand your basic premise, that people would take care of what needs to be done, and i don't disagree completely. I do think, however, that people are too shortsighted and narrow minded for this to work on the scale of a country, without a centralized administration.

Do you know what caused the increase of piracy on the Somali coast? Foreign fishing fleets were catching all the fish and left the local fishermen without work, because there was no strong government that could do anything about it. The video is entirely right about gangs of thugs - and if you don't have one of your own the others will walk all over you for their own benefit.

The people don't become the government, but they become the muscle of the government. The government remains what it is, a group of individuals making decisions that determine what is built where, what programs are being funded, etc. Without funding, the government cannot do anything, including acts that we disagree with ethically. When we approve of the services of the government, we submit tax money. When the ebb and flow of funds encourage politicians to actually act in the interest of the public, the mindset that those who pay taxes for the community is something that is looked upon with gratitude, somewhat like those who donate blood (although it'd be more universally recognized as not everyone needs a blood transfusion), and it would likely become something to take pride in. Also, I'd probably break taxation down to the state level, so that it's easier for citizens of a particular area to become more involved in the politics of their neighboring communities.

[whateverfloats]

We already have that. It's called donation.