5 ms·

I think this is fighting the symptom rather than the cause. NSA is a symptom of a much larger problem, which is taxes. If you didn't have them, you wouldn't hav

by snitko 13y ago

I think this is fighting the symptom rather than the cause. NSA is a symptom of a much larger problem, which is taxes. If you didn't have them, you wouldn't have to demand those things in the first place, because all the money you'd give would be given voluntarily and to organizations that you choose and think are important.

unimpressive 13y ago
>which is taxes Let's start with the possible, shall we?
- snitko 13y ago
  I agree. Let's use Bitcoin. It's possible right here today and you don't give anyone a cut.
czr80 13y ago
So, let me get this straight: we abolish taxes, eliminate governments, and then ... paradise?
- snitko 13y ago
  It depends on how you define paradise. If paradise is the same as now, but without massively killing population of foreign countries with drones, keeping people in prison without trial and massively spying on your own people, then yes, it's going to be paradise. If your question is whether we can still have a civilized, stable and prosperous society, ask yourself would the demand for the good things that are currently provided by the government go? Would people still need roads and fire protection and security?
  - falk 13y ago
    It's been working pretty well for Somalia I hear.
  - unimpressive 13y ago
    This true seeker has some questions: How do you deal with petty crime? It would be impractical to set up a temporary court for every theft. How do you hold the criminals while they're prosecuted, if they're prosecuted? Anarchists generally don't like prisons. Do you have a jail as a temporary holding cell? How do you stop external forces from taking over? As the old adage goes "If you want peace, prepare for war.".
    - snitko 13y ago
      Those questions already have great answers. I can probably only recommend you a couple of authors like David D. Friedman and Stefan Molyneux, they all address the questions you asked. In short, yes, there will be courts and prisons. But in general, try to think of people from the middle ages wondering how would a country work without a king and what a crazy idea a democracy is. Or how stupid and primitive those troglodytes are for not believing in god. Or who's gonna pick cotton if we didn't have slaves. The problems you mention are not that difficult to solve. What's difficult is to show people that what they think is the best system out there is actually immoral.
      - unimpressive 13y ago
        >David D. Friedman and Stefan Molyneux Any particular volumes?
        snitko 13y ago
        "The Machinery Of Freedom" by David D. Friedman discusses many aspects of workings of a society without a government. "Everyday Anarchy" by Stefan Molyneux demonstrates how we already live most of our lives in complete anarchy and how it actually works pretty good. Both are available for free.
        falk 13y ago
        This guy is nothing more than an extremist. Ask him about his prison system and I'm sure he'll parrot how privatized prisons are the solution to our woes. Alas, they aren't. Be weary of someone trying to tell you that if we just did X everything would be so much better.
  - czr80 13y ago
    You need to wrestle with three issues: - Preventing the emergence of warring factions [1] - Enforcement of rules underlying market transactions (e.g., contract law, property rights, policing, etc.) - Underinvestment in public goods, such as basic research and national defense [2] There is zero evidence that these three things are addressable at scale without some type of government, although of course we are free to argue forever about the level of centralisation, marginal tax rates, precise scope of activities, and so on. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
eksith 13y ago
Meanwhile, back on Earth... Taxes are the means of transferring worth to folks like firefighters, police officers, construction works etc... You know, the folks who hold up infrastructure and need to eat food and stuff. And I can count on one hand the number of people I've met who would donate to these institutions in this economy. Now if there's a way to reroute existing tax funds that used to go to rubbish into things that are really necessary, I'm all ears. And there may just be a way to work out something that enough heckling of public officials may... just may... get off the ground. Step 1: Earmarks are verboten. I've lost count of how many times I've seen a bill pass congress with a whole heap of pork-barrel nonsense (subsidies to shady companies anyone?) because some senator has to do a kickback to the folks who paid for his/her election. Step 2: Every law that is to be passed is read out loud from front page to end in congress by a designated reader from each party. They may take turns if they're tired, but no one is allowed to leave, have bathroom breaks, nap, chat or be otherwise distracted. You actually get to bloody know WTF you're passing. Someone raises a hand and goes, "hey, that's stupid!" Everyone stops and discusses what it is that's stupid and the thing gets amended on the spot. Step 3: No consecutive reelections... for anything. No exceptions! The chance that you won't be here the next term is a damn good way to ensure people remember you for the right reasons in your current term so you can come back the term after that to finish what you started. It also takes away the incentive to seek office as a career. No, you get to government to serve. Now pick up a broom, damn it! ...I'm sure someone else has some bright other ideas short of throwing out taxes, which functional societies will always have in some form until we throw out currency altogether.
- snitko 13y ago
  You are correct that taxes are means to finance good things too. But ask yourself this: can things you agree with be financed without simultaneously financing things you disagree with? Police officers, firefighters, teachers... Could it be that we don't really need any government to finance them? The demand is there. Private companies will be more than happy to fill it. All the government does is pretends that those things can't be done without it and then uses some of the money collected to finance things it wants, but you disagree with.
- noarchy 13y ago
grey-area 13y ago
It's quite possible to not agree with the NSA or their interpretation of their mission and still believe in representative government.
kub 13y ago
Actually, the REAL problem is the ability of law enforcement to enforce court sentences. Without that ability, taxes would be effectively eliminated, since you could just avoid paying them without ill effects. Also most of the public enemies who currently prosper thanks to the protection of the corrupt legal system (patent trolls, monopolists, politicians, financial fraudsters, etc.) would be quickly eliminated by a bullet to the head from the first passerby.
miga 13y ago
Ask liberal, and one will say that world is much worse with taxes and govt intervention in the economy. Other people may be tempted to talk about NSA as issue of civil liberties and govt supervision rather than economy though. Why not to fund EFF and civil liberties group instead?

by snitko 13y ago

unimpressive 13y ago

>which is taxes Let's start with the possible, shall we?

snitko 13y ago
I agree. Let's use Bitcoin. It's possible right here today and you don't give anyone a cut.

czr80 13y ago

So, let me get this straight: we abolish taxes, eliminate governments, and then ... paradise?

snitko 13y ago
It depends on how you define paradise. If paradise is the same as now, but without massively killing population of foreign countries with drones, keeping people in prison without trial and massively spying on your own people, then yes, it's going to be paradise. If your question is whether we can still have a civilized, stable and prosperous society, ask yourself would the demand for the good things that are currently provided by the government go? Would people still need roads and fire protection and security?
- falk 13y ago
  It's been working pretty well for Somalia I hear.
- unimpressive 13y ago
  This true seeker has some questions: How do you deal with petty crime? It would be impractical to set up a temporary court for every theft. How do you hold the criminals while they're prosecuted, if they're prosecuted? Anarchists generally don't like prisons. Do you have a jail as a temporary holding cell? How do you stop external forces from taking over? As the old adage goes "If you want peace, prepare for war.".
  - snitko 13y ago
    Those questions already have great answers. I can probably only recommend you a couple of authors like David D. Friedman and Stefan Molyneux, they all address the questions you asked. In short, yes, there will be courts and prisons. But in general, try to think of people from the middle ages wondering how would a country work without a king and what a crazy idea a democracy is. Or how stupid and primitive those troglodytes are for not believing in god. Or who's gonna pick cotton if we didn't have slaves. The problems you mention are not that difficult to solve. What's difficult is to show people that what they think is the best system out there is actually immoral.
    - unimpressive 13y ago
      >David D. Friedman and Stefan Molyneux Any particular volumes?
      - snitko 13y ago
        "The Machinery Of Freedom" by David D. Friedman discusses many aspects of workings of a society without a government. "Everyday Anarchy" by Stefan Molyneux demonstrates how we already live most of our lives in complete anarchy and how it actually works pretty good. Both are available for free.
      - falk 13y ago
        This guy is nothing more than an extremist. Ask him about his prison system and I'm sure he'll parrot how privatized prisons are the solution to our woes. Alas, they aren't. Be weary of someone trying to tell you that if we just did X everything would be so much better.
- czr80 13y ago
  You need to wrestle with three issues: - Preventing the emergence of warring factions [1] - Enforcement of rules underlying market transactions (e.g., contract law, property rights, policing, etc.) - Underinvestment in public goods, such as basic research and national defense [2] There is zero evidence that these three things are addressable at scale without some type of government, although of course we are free to argue forever about the level of centralisation, marginal tax rates, precise scope of activities, and so on. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

eksith 13y ago

Meanwhile, back on Earth... Taxes are the means of transferring worth to folks like firefighters, police officers, construction works etc... You know, the folks who hold up infrastructure and need to eat food and stuff. And I can count on one hand the number of people I've met who would donate to these institutions in this economy. Now if there's a way to reroute existing tax funds that used to go to rubbish into things that are really necessary, I'm all ears. And there may just be a way to work out something that enough heckling of public officials may... just may... get off the ground. Step 1: Earmarks are verboten. I've lost count of how many times I've seen a bill pass congress with a whole heap of pork-barrel nonsense (subsidies to shady companies anyone?) because some senator has to do a kickback to the folks who paid for his/her election. Step 2: Every law that is to be passed is read out loud from front page to end in congress by a designated reader from each party. They may take turns if they're tired, but no one is allowed to leave, have bathroom breaks, nap, chat or be otherwise distracted. You actually get to bloody know WTF you're passing. Someone raises a hand and goes, "hey, that's stupid!" Everyone stops and discusses what it is that's stupid and the thing gets amended on the spot. Step 3: No consecutive reelections... for anything. No exceptions! The chance that you won't be here the next term is a damn good way to ensure people remember you for the right reasons in your current term so you can come back the term after that to finish what you started. It also takes away the incentive to seek office as a career. No, you get to government to serve. Now pick up a broom, damn it! ...I'm sure someone else has some bright other ideas short of throwing out taxes, which functional societies will always have in some form until we throw out currency altogether.

snitko 13y ago
You are correct that taxes are means to finance good things too. But ask yourself this: can things you agree with be financed without simultaneously financing things you disagree with? Police officers, firefighters, teachers... Could it be that we don't really need any government to finance them? The demand is there. Private companies will be more than happy to fill it. All the government does is pretends that those things can't be done without it and then uses some of the money collected to finance things it wants, but you disagree with.
noarchy 13y ago

grey-area 13y ago

It's quite possible to not agree with the NSA or their interpretation of their mission and still believe in representative government.

kub 13y ago

Actually, the REAL problem is the ability of law enforcement to enforce court sentences. Without that ability, taxes would be effectively eliminated, since you could just avoid paying them without ill effects. Also most of the public enemies who currently prosper thanks to the protection of the corrupt legal system (patent trolls, monopolists, politicians, financial fraudsters, etc.) would be quickly eliminated by a bullet to the head from the first passerby.

miga 13y ago

Ask liberal, and one will say that world is much worse with taxes and govt intervention in the economy. Other people may be tempted to talk about NSA as issue of civil liberties and govt supervision rather than economy though. Why not to fund EFF and civil liberties group instead?