3 ms·

Lobby is absent in non regulated environment. Only competition maters. Bin empties a company that is payed for its job. Now it doesn't matter how much waste yo

Lobby is absent in non regulated environment. Only competition maters. Bin empties a company that is payed for its job. Now it doesn't matter how much waste you produce, because its mandated and same for all for same price. But not all litter a same. Which makes inequalities. Same for health care (EU), education, etc.

em-bee 3y ago
mandated aka forced contribution aka taxes. you might argue that taxes are not the same thing, but i disagree. the point is that it is a required contribution, which is a condition for living in a community, which was the argument that i started with.
- t0bia_s 3y ago
  You miss my point here. Im strongly against manadatory and forced contributions. If you don't see a purpose in financing something, force to do it brings inequalities and in long term create conflicts. I prefer reasonable choices that have sense for you or community. Imagine businesses in private sector that would charge you for things that you don't ordered. Its nonsense, somehow tolerable if done by state.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    then who cleans up the trash? charge you for things that you don't ordered that is not what is happening here. the state is not some foreign entity, but the elected representative will of the community. i want the trash taken care of, and so does the majority of the community. if your government does not do what your community wants then you don't live in a functioning democracy. that is a different problem alltogether. in summary: free market will not take care of those problems i mentioned. if you disagree, then i'd like to see a specific explanation how a free market can take care of those issues. anything mandatory is not a free market. to get these things taken care of, the community will have to enact rules or delegate someone to do it. how it makes that decision is is up to the community. it doesn't require a government that is not under the control of the community. nor does the existence of taxes imply the existence of such a government.
    - t0bia_s 3y ago
      - if your government does not do what your community wants then you don't live in a functioning democracy. Democracy is rule of majority and make inequalities by definition. Minorities needs to accept rules that they do not agree with. It's like monopoly except it is forbidden to do competition by law. Decentralisation of taxes or financial system could solve many issues that escalate recently. - i'd like to see a specific explanation how a free market can take care of those issues. I don't think free market solve issues. Decentralisation and gathering in local communities could. Less mandateds = less laws = less taxes = more personal responsibility which means more effective solving problems that really matter for you and your close one. - to get these things taken care of, the community will have to enact rules or delegate someone to do it. how it makes that decision is is up to the community. it doesn't require a government that is not under the control of the community. nor does the existence of taxes imply the existence of such a government. I agree with that.
      - em-bee 3y ago
        those are interesting points. i think on the first one i think i am using a different definition of democracy. in short, for me democracy means something that actually works and respects the will of all people including minorities. simple rule of majority is not really democratic in my view. the flip side of that is that i do not believe that there is any country in the world today that has a functioning democracy. in short, it looks like we both actually want something similar here. what that is needs more discussion. my idea of democracy also has a heavy focus on decentralization. basically i believe that decisions or rules should be made at the lowest level needed for that rule to be useful. that means, things like traffic rules should be made at a national or better even global level because it is not helpful to have different rules for that in every city. same goes for issues like polution. those are global problems. but many other problems are local, and it is better to decide those on a local level. i'd even go as far as suggesting to make every possible choice at a local level first and only escalate to a higher level if the local decisions create a conflict with neighboring localities. so i am 100% with you on decentralization. though i don't see less laws or less taxes as a goal or as an obvious result. decentralization could lead to less laws or taxes, but it doesn't have to. personally i don't care either way. that is up to each community to work out for themselves. i think the problem at the start of the thread was that the claim was that there should be zero taxes or zero mandated contributions of any form. and that is something i disagree with. and it appears that you are not asking for that either. the next question would be: how would a political or electoral system look like that enables those things? whether it is called democracy or something else.

em-bee 3y ago

mandated aka forced contribution aka taxes. you might argue that taxes are not the same thing, but i disagree. the point is that it is a required contribution, which is a condition for living in a community, which was the argument that i started with.

t0bia_s 3y ago
You miss my point here. Im strongly against manadatory and forced contributions. If you don't see a purpose in financing something, force to do it brings inequalities and in long term create conflicts. I prefer reasonable choices that have sense for you or community. Imagine businesses in private sector that would charge you for things that you don't ordered. Its nonsense, somehow tolerable if done by state.
- em-bee 3y ago
  then who cleans up the trash? charge you for things that you don't ordered that is not what is happening here. the state is not some foreign entity, but the elected representative will of the community. i want the trash taken care of, and so does the majority of the community. if your government does not do what your community wants then you don't live in a functioning democracy. that is a different problem alltogether. in summary: free market will not take care of those problems i mentioned. if you disagree, then i'd like to see a specific explanation how a free market can take care of those issues. anything mandatory is not a free market. to get these things taken care of, the community will have to enact rules or delegate someone to do it. how it makes that decision is is up to the community. it doesn't require a government that is not under the control of the community. nor does the existence of taxes imply the existence of such a government.
  - t0bia_s 3y ago
    - if your government does not do what your community wants then you don't live in a functioning democracy. Democracy is rule of majority and make inequalities by definition. Minorities needs to accept rules that they do not agree with. It's like monopoly except it is forbidden to do competition by law. Decentralisation of taxes or financial system could solve many issues that escalate recently. - i'd like to see a specific explanation how a free market can take care of those issues. I don't think free market solve issues. Decentralisation and gathering in local communities could. Less mandateds = less laws = less taxes = more personal responsibility which means more effective solving problems that really matter for you and your close one. - to get these things taken care of, the community will have to enact rules or delegate someone to do it. how it makes that decision is is up to the community. it doesn't require a government that is not under the control of the community. nor does the existence of taxes imply the existence of such a government. I agree with that.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      those are interesting points. i think on the first one i think i am using a different definition of democracy. in short, for me democracy means something that actually works and respects the will of all people including minorities. simple rule of majority is not really democratic in my view. the flip side of that is that i do not believe that there is any country in the world today that has a functioning democracy. in short, it looks like we both actually want something similar here. what that is needs more discussion. my idea of democracy also has a heavy focus on decentralization. basically i believe that decisions or rules should be made at the lowest level needed for that rule to be useful. that means, things like traffic rules should be made at a national or better even global level because it is not helpful to have different rules for that in every city. same goes for issues like polution. those are global problems. but many other problems are local, and it is better to decide those on a local level. i'd even go as far as suggesting to make every possible choice at a local level first and only escalate to a higher level if the local decisions create a conflict with neighboring localities. so i am 100% with you on decentralization. though i don't see less laws or less taxes as a goal or as an obvious result. decentralization could lead to less laws or taxes, but it doesn't have to. personally i don't care either way. that is up to each community to work out for themselves. i think the problem at the start of the thread was that the claim was that there should be zero taxes or zero mandated contributions of any form. and that is something i disagree with. and it appears that you are not asking for that either. the next question would be: how would a political or electoral system look like that enables those things? whether it is called democracy or something else.