Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The other options being, what? Everyone suddenly decides to work together in perfect harmony without desire for personal gain?
social compulsion is the first one that comes to mind, community benefits/ostracization
like, you are saying the only 2 possible ways, ever, for raising money for social services are, direct private investment and state based taxation?
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Necessary, everyone deserves equal access to Police, Fire Departments and proper Health Care and food regardless of how much money they have or even if they have none at all.
dude
nobody has ever argued that point with you
its 25 pages now, get it, everyone agrees with you.
Originally posted by inimalist
social compulsion is the first one that comes to mind, community benefits/ostracizationlike, you are saying the only 2 possible ways, ever, for raising money for social services are, direct private investment and state based taxation?
Social compulsion as you describe it has essentially no difference from taxation, except that it doesn't come from a government.
Originally posted by inimalist
social compulsion is the first one that comes to mind, community benefits/ostracizationlike, you are saying the only 2 possible ways, ever, for raising money for social services are, direct private investment and state based taxation?
Your way doesn't insure that everyone has equal access to all necessary services.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Social compulsion as you describe it has essentially no difference from taxation, except that it doesn't come from a government.
you trivialize what, to me, is the most important distinction. I've never been against local and fluid type organization.
also, nobody loses any personal liberty if they voluntarily opt out
Have you seen Resevoir Dogs? Think of that discussion at the beginning about tipping waitresses.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosIt really isn't though. Taxes are the government saying "Give us money or we will come with guns to your home, put you into a cell and if you still disobey us shoot you". What inimalist is talking about is more "Give us money or we won't invite you to our tea parties". Seems a lot better to me, really.
Nah.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It really isn't though. Taxes are the government saying "Give us money or we will come with guns to your home, put you into a cell and if you still disobey us shoot you". What inimalist is talking about is more "Give us money or we won't invite you to our tea parties". Seems a lot better to me, really.
admittedly, I might favor some harsher consequences.
Originally posted by inimalist
you trivialize what, to me, is the most important distinction. I've never been against local and fluid type organization.
Kay.
Originally posted by inimalist
also, nobody loses any personal liberty if they voluntarily opt out
Did you not note ostrization? Not loss of liberty but still what would seem to be an essentially unfair penalty in that sort of society.
Originally posted by inimalist
Have you seen Resevoir Dogs? Think of that discussion at the beginning about tipping waitresses.
Haven't seen it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It really isn't though. Taxes are the government saying "Give us money or we will come with guns to your home, put you into a cell and if you still disobey us shoot you". What inimalist is talking about is more "Give us money or we won't invite you to our tea parties". Seems a lot better to me, really.
Uhuh . . . so when society really needs money what happens? No joining our rec-center?
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosWhat does society "really" need? And who is that "society" that really needs it? And how many are in that "society" that really needs it. And why exactly can't they pay for it themselves?
Uhuh . . . so when society really needs money what happens? No joining our rec-center?