Fair Tax

[Stunt]

A whole decade! :Q

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Stunt
A whole decade! :Q

It never stopped 'working,' people just eventually gave into being ruled.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Stunt
A whole decade! :Q

It never stopped 'working,' people just eventually gave into being ruled.

Why did they do that?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Stunt
A whole decade! :Q

It never stopped 'working,' people just eventually gave into being ruled.

Why did they do that?

Good question. I would venture to say that the people in the colony were 'passive' anarchists. They probably did not outright reject all forms of government, they just rejected the government in that particular situation with those particular rulers, such as Blackwell.

In general today though, people give in to being ruled for the same reason they go to church. They want to believe in a higher power, not only in heaven but also on Earth. Instead of God though, they call it 'government' and they are taught it in high school civics classes.

 

[BoberFett]

I read that whole piece, and it's about Penn, not about this anarchist society you speak of. I see no information there that discusses life under such a system.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Yep, for just about an entire decade right here in the U.S.

Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment

So the settlers entered into contracts with the original landowner... then decided not to bother with any of their obligations.

So now they have essentially stolen the land they live on, and there is no workable arbitration system for the original owner to seek compensation.

A number of citizens offer to 'buy off' the collection of taxes for an additional year, but don't bother paying in full, and again there is no recourse.

Sounds like a glowing success to me. I'm sure America would survive for at least a few years before infrastructure degradation and lawlessness took over. Don't forget that the dominant group of settlers were extreme pacifists - hardly the case in gun-toting America at large (or most other countries, for that matter).

This isn't a very impressive example.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
So if you can show that some services need to be supplied by government, you have given a useful defense of that said government has the legitimate authority to tax in order to create those services.

OK, except that we're discussing the fair collection of those taxes here.

I'm just following where the grinch wants to lead here...

 

[Stunt]

I don't think very many people look up to government at all. I think most people recognize they are a company without the drive or motivation for profits. A group of people paid by the whole nation to offer services for people that they demand.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I read that whole piece, and it's about Penn, not about this anarchist society you speak of. I see no information there that discusses life under such a system.

It is mainly about the fact that the colony was literally in anarchy for at least 4 years, and near anarchy for some years before and after that.

If for most of 1684-88 there was no colonywide government in existence, what of the local officials? Were they not around to provide that evidence of the state's continued existence, which so many people through the ages have deemed vital to man's very survival? The answer is no. The lower courts met only a few days a year, and the county officials were, again, private citizens who devoted very little time to upholding the law. No, the reality must be faced that the new, but rather large, colony of Pennsylvania lived for the greater part of four years in a de facto condition of individual anarchism, and seemed none the worse for the experience. Furthermore, the Assembly passed no laws after 1686, as it was involved in a continual wrangle over attempts to increase its powers and to amend, rather than just reject, legislation.

As for daily life in the colony, you may have to look up other historical texts for that. It was not in chaos, however, it was a stable society.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I don't think very many people look up to government at all. I think most people recognize they are a company without the drive or motivation for profits. A group of people paid by the whole nation to offer services for people that they demand.

People certainly do look up to the 'government.' So much so that they believe their very existence depends on it.

The government is a 'company' without the drive or motivation for profits?? How can you have 'profits' if all of your income is derived from extortion? The state is certainly not a company or firm.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
People certainly do look up to the 'government.' So much so that they believe their very existence depends on it.

Proof?

Also, government is accountable to the people, offering services without fear of abusive practices some companies have historically displayed without accountability or drive to serve the user.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Dissipate
People certainly do look up to the 'government.' So much so that they believe their very existence depends on it.

Proof?

Proof?! I would say at least 90% of the adult population believes in collectivized security (i.e. state run police protection and national defense).

I've been in parades as a kid with my uncle who is a politician and watched people cheer as he went by. Not only that, but I've read a number of materials by 'scholarly' professors calling for government intervention here or there to cure some'ill' of society. Additionally I have read about businessmen who call for the government to do something about their competition or something that is hurting their business. etc. etc. etc. Everywhere you turn someone somewhere is calling upon their 'elected higher power' to do something for them or 'society.'

Government is 'accountable?' This is clearly false in practice and in theory. Relative to other institutions I would say the state is the least accountable of all. Most people haven't a clue what politicians are up to in between election time, and even if they did they have already been pre-conditioned by the state run school system that what they are doing is legitimate because they passed the ritual of getting more 'votes' than the other guy.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Yep, for just about an entire decade right here in the U.S.

Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment

So the settlers entered into contracts with the original landowner... then decided not to bother with any of their obligations.

So now they have essentially stolen the land they live on, and there is no workable arbitration system for the original owner to seek compensation.

A number of citizens offer to 'buy off' the collection of taxes for an additional year, but don't bother paying in full, and again there is no recourse.

Sounds like a glowing success to me. I'm sure America would survive for at least a few years before infrastructure degradation and lawlessness took over. Don't forget that the dominant group of settlers were extreme pacifists - hardly the case in gun-toting America at large (or most other countries, for that matter).

This isn't a very impressive example.

So much for 'private contractualism'.

 

[BoberFett]

Kinda what I was thinking 3chord.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Yep, for just about an entire decade right here in the U.S.

Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment

So the settlers entered into contracts with the original landowner... then decided not to bother with any of their obligations.

So now they have essentially stolen the land they live on, and there is no workable arbitration system for the original owner to seek compensation.

A number of citizens offer to 'buy off' the collection of taxes for an additional year, but don't bother paying in full, and again there is no recourse.

Sounds like a glowing success to me. I'm sure America would survive for at least a few years before infrastructure degradation and lawlessness took over. Don't forget that the dominant group of settlers were extreme pacifists - hardly the case in gun-toting America at large (or most other countries, for that matter).

This isn't a very impressive example.

So much for 'private contractualism'.

I would argue that Penn illegitimately attempted to impose a state on the colony. I know I wouldn't contract to be ruled by a state if I were to settle on someone's land.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I would argue that Penn illegitimately attempted to impose a state on the colony. I know I wouldn't contract to be ruled by a state if I were to settle on someone's land.

They moved there with an understanding of the conditions. In fact, they knew that taxes had been temporarily suspended to encourage settlement - how is the voluntary choice of settlers choosing to live there an argument that Penn's state was 'illegitimate'?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I would argue that Penn illegitimately attempted to impose a state on the colony. I know I wouldn't contract to be ruled by a state if I were to settle on someone's land.

They moved there with an understanding of the conditions. In fact, they knew that taxes had been temporarily suspended to encourage settlement - how is the voluntary choice of settlers choosing to live there an argument that Penn's state was 'illegitimate'?

Well, I would question whether or not Penn actually 'owned' the land in the first place. I would ask whether the land had been homesteaded according to Lockean homesteading theory. If not, the land was up for grabs and Penn misrepresented himself by claiming he had owned it.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I would argue that Penn illegitimately attempted to impose a state on the colony. I know I wouldn't contract to be ruled by a state if I were to settle on someone's land.

They moved there with an understanding of the conditions. In fact, they knew that taxes had been temporarily suspended to encourage settlement - how is the voluntary choice of settlers choosing to live there an argument that Penn's state was 'illegitimate'?

Well, I would question whether or not Penn actually 'owned' the land in the first place. I would ask whether the land had been homesteaded according to Lockean homesteading theory. If not, the land was up for grabs and Penn misrepresented himself by claiming he had owned it.

Then why pay him anything for it at all, as some of the settlers did?

You can't assume away a state that already exists, and you can't explain the settlers breaking their contracts by claiming the contracts should never have existed, which is what you're doing. I'm well aware of Lockean homesteading theory, but I don't see that it has any real legitimacy; if you're going to claim Penn didn't own the land, you had better claim that the natives did, but had also better explain why the settlers would ever have entered into contracts with Penn in the first place.

 

[flyfish]

The FairTax system is not perfect, but it is 99% better than what we have now.
My representatives will support the bill or I will not support them.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I would argue that Penn illegitimately attempted to impose a state on the colony. I know I wouldn't contract to be ruled by a state if I were to settle on someone's land.

They moved there with an understanding of the conditions. In fact, they knew that taxes had been temporarily suspended to encourage settlement - how is the voluntary choice of settlers choosing to live there an argument that Penn's state was 'illegitimate'?

Well, I would question whether or not Penn actually 'owned' the land in the first place. I would ask whether the land had been homesteaded according to Lockean homesteading theory. If not, the land was up for grabs and Penn misrepresented himself by claiming he had owned it.

Then why pay him anything for it at all, as some of the settlers did?

You can't assume away a state that already exists, and you can't explain the settlers breaking their contracts by claiming the contracts should never have existed, which is what you're doing. I'm well aware of Lockean homesteading theory, but I don't see that it has any real legitimacy; if you're going to claim Penn didn't own the land, you had better claim that the natives did, but had also better explain why the settlers would ever have entered into contracts with Penn in the first place.

If they did enter into contracts with Penn, and Penn upheld his end of the contract, then they were in anarchy to begin with. A state is necessarily a non-contractual entity.

However, that being the case, I think what is really at issue here is the fact that the colony was free of tax 'n spend schemes and other state-like institutions for about a decade regardless of whether or not they ripped Penn off by not abiding by his rules.

As for Lockean homesteading theory, that's a whole different ballgame.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
If they did enter into contracts with Penn, and Penn upheld his end of the contract, then they were in anarchy to begin with. A state is necessarily a non-contractual entity.

However, that being the case, I think what is really at issue here is the fact that the colony was free of tax 'n spend schemes and other state-like institutions for about a decade regardless of whether or not they ripped Penn off by not abiding by his rules.

As for Lockean homesteading theory, that's a whole different ballgame.

More like immigration coupled with land ownership, if you ask me - they agreed to be under the governance, however minimal, of the state Penn created.

As I said, I don't see that a country would instantly fall apart if the state were suspended; but what sort of progress did the colonists make re: infrastructure, education, etc? Ten years is much too short a time to evaluate this.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: flyfish
The FairTax system is not perfect, but it is 99% better than what we have now.
My representatives will support the bill or I will not support them.

I love when people try to quantify how much "better" unproven theories.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
If they did enter into contracts with Penn, and Penn upheld his end of the contract, then they were in anarchy to begin with. A state is necessarily a non-contractual entity.

However, that being the case, I think what is really at issue here is the fact that the colony was free of tax 'n spend schemes and other state-like institutions for about a decade regardless of whether or not they ripped Penn off by not abiding by his rules.

As for Lockean homesteading theory, that's a whole different ballgame.

More like immigration coupled with land ownership, if you ask me - they agreed to be under the governance, however minimal, of the state Penn created.

As I said, I don't see that a country would instantly fall apart if the state were suspended; but what sort of progress did the colonists make re: infrastructure, education, etc? Ten years is much too short a time to evaluate this.

So you do not believe in the Hobbesian myth of the 'state of nature?!' Well, at least we are making progress. :thumbsup:

Indeed it is too short of a time to evaluate it. All the more reason to give anarchy a chance now and see how it goes.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
If they did enter into contracts with Penn, and Penn upheld his end of the contract, then they were in anarchy to begin with. A state is necessarily a non-contractual entity.

However, that being the case, I think what is really at issue here is the fact that the colony was free of tax 'n spend schemes and other state-like institutions for about a decade regardless of whether or not they ripped Penn off by not abiding by his rules.

As for Lockean homesteading theory, that's a whole different ballgame.

More like immigration coupled with land ownership, if you ask me - they agreed to be under the governance, however minimal, of the state Penn created.

As I said, I don't see that a country would instantly fall apart if the state were suspended; but what sort of progress did the colonists make re: infrastructure, education, etc? Ten years is much too short a time to evaluate this.

So you do not believe in the Hobbesian myth of the 'state of nature?!' Well, at least we are making progress. :thumbsup:

Indeed it is too short of a time to evaluate it. All the more reason to give anarchy a chance now and see how it goes.

Anarchy has been come about on a number of occasions - each time it fills itself with governance in short order.

I tend to agree that beaurocracy has an unhealthy tendency to grow, and I've yet to see a good solution. Even the great '2nd amendment' in the United States has never lead to the people rising up against their oppressive government... they just accept more and more state control.

While I honestly believe that some government is necessary, I don't know if a stable equilibrium exists at all - it may be that governments are doomed to grow until they fail under their own weight, and then start again from scratch. But history shows that every time there is a power vaccuum created by the failure of a state, a new one rises up; if anarchy were a tenable option, regardless of (eg) my expectations for the efficiency of privately owned infrastructure, one can only imagine it would have happened by now.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Anarchy has been come about on a number of occasions - each time it fills itself with governance in short order.

I would say many of the backwards African nations are the closest thing we have to anarchy in the world right now. Not exactly a shining example.

I tend to agree that beaurocracy has an unhealthy tendency to grow, and I've yet to see a good solution. Even the great '2nd amendment' in the United States has never lead to the people rising up against their oppressive government... they just accept more and more state control.

I would say that's because the state isn't truly oppressive. Yet. Which is why I fight for the 2nd Amendment. The old "better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it".

While I honestly believe that some government is necessary, I don't know if a stable equilibrium exists at all - it may be that governments are doomed to grow until they fail under their own weight, and then start again from scratch. But history shows that every time there is a power vaccuum created by the failure of a state, a new one rises up; if anarchy were a tenable option, regardless of (eg) my expectations for the efficiency of privately owned infrastructure, one can only imagine it would have happened by now.

Nature is cyclical. That includes human nature.