-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Wow, we get to pay more taxes. Thanks Mr. Tax Cutting Bush!
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
No I do not think we need any government, if there is, government should be very limited. Anything that can be done by the state, can usually be done better by private companies and competition.
As Murray N. Rothbard said in his speech:
"In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of "protection." It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty "protection racket" on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: "Pay us for your 'protection' or else." In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a "protection racket" emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed."
As Murray N. Rothbard said in his speech:
"In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of "protection." It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty "protection racket" on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: "Pay us for your 'protection' or else." In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a "protection racket" emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed."
homercles337
Diamond Member
How about you include corporations? If corporate america paid its fair due (whats in the tax laws) EVERY single american would see his/her tax burden halved. I think we agree if you include corporations.
Like driving toll roads?
Do you wish to hire ADT to protect your house?
Wakenhut to patrol and arrest the criminals.
Where to you think your local taxes go.
If it was not for Federal Taxes, you could be speaking Japanese, German or Russian.
and look at what insurance companies are doing to [people around the Gulf coast.
If the government did not step in, homeowners there would be getting the shaft for repairs.
Others would be unable to even build because of the perceived risk.
Some people would be unable to drive due to lack of insurance.
Who will protect the coastlines and fisherman. Private enterprise to locate people in distress and save their boats prior to them captizing. Drug interdiction; waterway maintenance. That is what the US Coast Guard does.
The role of insurance is in this case is the protection of life, property and borders of their clients. Insurance companies would hire those who are professionals to protect their clients and with the use of intelligence firms to determine future threats. If they fail to protect, they risk huge losses. As a second layer, most people who are trained and are able to use guns, would help defend their properties and life. The 400 billion dollar defense budget, with all it's spying and information gathering, spent by government failed to protect us on 9/11.
"Of course, some of the private defense agencies will become criminal, just as some people become criminal now. But the point is that in a stateless society there would be no regular, legalized channel for crime and aggression, no government apparatus the control of which provides a secure monopoly for invasion of person and property. When a State exists, there does exist such a built-in channel, namely, the coercive taxation power, and the compulsory monopoly of forcible protection. In the purely free-market society, a would-be criminal police or judiciary would find it very difficult to take power, since there would be no organized State apparatus to seize and use as the instrumentality of command. To create such an instrumentality de novo is very difficult, and, indeed, almost impossible; historically, it took State rulers centuries to establish a functioning State apparatus.
Furthermore, the purely free-market, stateless society would contain within itself a system of built-in "checks and balances" that would make it almost impossible for such organized crime to succeed. There has been much talk about "checks and balances" in the American system, but these can scarcely be considered checks at all, since every one of these institutions is an agency of the central government and eventually of the ruling party of that government. The checks and balances in the stateless society consist precisely in the free market, i.e., the existence of freely competitive police and judicial agencies that could quickly be mobilized to put down any outlaw agency.
It is true that there can be no absolute guarantee that a purely market society would not fall prey to organized criminality. But this concept is far more workable than the truly Utopian idea of a strictly limited government, an idea that has never worked historically. And understandably so, for the State's built-in monopoly of aggression and inherent absence of free-market checks have enabled it to burst easily any bonds that well-meaning people have tried to place upon it. Finally, the worst that could possibly happen would be for the State to be reestablished. And since the State is what we have now, any experimentation with a stateless society would have nothing to lose and everything to gain."
From his book Power and Market
Rothbard
"Of course, some of the private defense agencies will become criminal, just as some people become criminal now. But the point is that in a stateless society there would be no regular, legalized channel for crime and aggression, no government apparatus the control of which provides a secure monopoly for invasion of person and property. When a State exists, there does exist such a built-in channel, namely, the coercive taxation power, and the compulsory monopoly of forcible protection. In the purely free-market society, a would-be criminal police or judiciary would find it very difficult to take power, since there would be no organized State apparatus to seize and use as the instrumentality of command. To create such an instrumentality de novo is very difficult, and, indeed, almost impossible; historically, it took State rulers centuries to establish a functioning State apparatus.
Furthermore, the purely free-market, stateless society would contain within itself a system of built-in "checks and balances" that would make it almost impossible for such organized crime to succeed. There has been much talk about "checks and balances" in the American system, but these can scarcely be considered checks at all, since every one of these institutions is an agency of the central government and eventually of the ruling party of that government. The checks and balances in the stateless society consist precisely in the free market, i.e., the existence of freely competitive police and judicial agencies that could quickly be mobilized to put down any outlaw agency.
It is true that there can be no absolute guarantee that a purely market society would not fall prey to organized criminality. But this concept is far more workable than the truly Utopian idea of a strictly limited government, an idea that has never worked historically. And understandably so, for the State's built-in monopoly of aggression and inherent absence of free-market checks have enabled it to burst easily any bonds that well-meaning people have tried to place upon it. Finally, the worst that could possibly happen would be for the State to be reestablished. And since the State is what we have now, any experimentation with a stateless society would have nothing to lose and everything to gain."
From his book Power and Market
Rothbard
JD50
Lifer
I see that you are unable to come up with any thoughts of your own and just copy talking points from other people. Its easy to come up with a bunch of theoretical crap and put it into a book where no one is there to call you on the BS, but its much different when you come to a message board and try that. Please let us know when you have some thoughts of your own, until then, baaaaaaahhhhhhhh!
A couple of examples where the checks and balances fail.
the gangs in the inner cities (currently). they may keep each other in check, but they are still there. They divide the area into sections and control each sections.
without the law enforcement, do you think they would not try to expand.
The Mafia was blocked by the government, not themselves.
The dillinger type people were blocked by the government, not the opposign gangs.
The wild west required government intervention to make the towns safe. the ranchers took care of their own property - the towns required the government to protect them.
Criminals will divide up the booty and work out sharing agreements of turf when expansion is needed.
The same goes for insurance.
Many companies would pull out of the homeowners racket along the Gulf and Alantic coasts.
The only reason they stay is because the states will prevent them from underwriting any other insurance like auto, life.
You could kill the economy in those areas by shutting down the housing market due to lack of insurance.
In the above example, the government acts as the counter weight to the insurance.
the gangs in the inner cities (currently). they may keep each other in check, but they are still there. They divide the area into sections and control each sections.
without the law enforcement, do you think they would not try to expand.
The Mafia was blocked by the government, not themselves.
The dillinger type people were blocked by the government, not the opposign gangs.
The wild west required government intervention to make the towns safe. the ranchers took care of their own property - the towns required the government to protect them.
Criminals will divide up the booty and work out sharing agreements of turf when expansion is needed.
The same goes for insurance.
Many companies would pull out of the homeowners racket along the Gulf and Alantic coasts.
The only reason they stay is because the states will prevent them from underwriting any other insurance like auto, life.
You could kill the economy in those areas by shutting down the housing market due to lack of insurance.
In the above example, the government acts as the counter weight to the insurance.
My line of answers is that taxes are needed at all levels because private enterprise does not always provide a reasonable checks and balance and/or is unable to effectively provide some services that the population requires not justs desires.
And the government should do everything it can to obtain the taxes needed to fund operationis.
If taxes are not paid by a group of people, others have to pay more than their originally assigned share to compensate.
And the government should do everything it can to obtain the taxes needed to fund operationis.
If taxes are not paid by a group of people, others have to pay more than their originally assigned share to compensate.
JD50
Lifer
So you see no need for the military? Coast Guard? Police?
Sorry, your theory of insurance companies being the answer to everything is just ridiculous. Government is necessary, not at the level that its gotten to today, but it is necessary.
Also, as to this "The 400 billion dollar defense budget, with all it's spying and information gathering, spent by government failed to protect us on 9/11" is also a silly statement, because you have absolutely no idea how many 9/11 like incidents have been prevented over the years.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
