4 ms·

> If there was no IRS and taxes, everything would be almost the same, except cheaper. There would be no courts for those who cannot afford to pay for them. Tha

> If there was no IRS and taxes, everything would be almost the same, except cheaper. There would be no courts for those who cannot afford to pay for them. That's one major difference. There would be no police, fire agencies, etc etc, for those who cannot afford to pay for them. There would be less in the way of a social safety net for those who fall from their job. And as I say, in order to avoid the IRS, or any other organisation which might seek to tax you, you'd have to plan out the social infrastructure so that there are no big targets to attack and demand money from. Otherwise, it's very easy for a new IRS to pop up. > People on their own hating blacks, or gay or mexicans cannot do much So it is outright impossible for groups of people to gather to cause serious violent harm towards members of a minority, leading to loss of life with no potential legal recourse (unless you're rich enough to pay for it)? Is this what you are saying?

snitko 13y ago
> There would be no courts for those who cannot afford to pay for them. That's one major difference. There would be no police, fire agencies, etc etc, I highy recommend you watch this video, it's an illustrated talk by David D. Friedman, explaining how police, courts and other things would exist and work in a world without government: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o All of those things are just services. And the poor would be able to afford them too, just like the poor can afford cars, shoes and computers. > So it is outright impossible for groups of people to gather to cause serious violent harm towards members of a minority, leading to loss of life with no potential legal recourse? Is this what you are saying? It's possible, but they'd be paying for violence out of their own pocket. How many people, do you suppose, would oppose gay marriage or, say, pot if they were presented with a bill for outlawing it? My guess most of them would prefer to keep the money and make their peace with it. But because the cost of outlawing certain things is paid by all the taxpayers, they essentially pay for what they believe is right out of everyone else's pockets.
- vertex-four 13y ago
  > And the poor would be able to afford them too, just like the poor can afford cars, shoes and computers. Most countries have a benefits system which allows the poor a minimum level of quality of life. Additionally, cars, shoes, and computers, are all available second-hand for much reduced prices, because of consumerism. That is how they can afford these things. Are you suggesting that the poor should only be allowed to access lesser court systems than the rich? Why don't you look up fire services in the past - if you did not have the money, which some did not, they would let your house burn to the ground. Why don't you look up medicine today - in the countries where the Government does not provide free-at-point-of-use healthcare, the poor regularly die of very treatable diseases. Your theory that everybody will be able to afford what they need does not work out. > It's possible, but they'd be paying for violence out of their own pocket. We have a history of this happening. It still happens in many countries which have weak or compliant court systems, India for example. I'd suggest you look into how things work out in the real world.
  - snitko 13y ago
    > I'd suggest you look into how things work out in the real world. In the real world the rich already have access to "better courts" because they can afford to hire top lawyers. My argument is that it's not going to be necessarily perfect, but simply better and more fair to the poor if government wasn't a monopoly on police and courts. Of course the rich would get better everything. They always will. The point is to improve the lot of ordinary people, not to hurt the rich. If you intend to help the poor by robbing (taxing) the rich, you're trying to do good by doing harm - that's not moral.
    - vertex-four 13y ago
      > In the real world the rich already have access to "better courts" because they can afford to hire top lawyers. And the solution to that is not to encode those inequalities into the fabric and rules of how a society works. It's to try and solve the issue as best as we possibly can.
      - snitko 13y ago
- gnaritas 13y ago
  Please stop trying to tie Bitcoin to your radical political worldview, you're hurting the adoption of Bitcoin for the reasonable folks among us.
  - snitko 13y ago
    Well, why do you suppose Satoshi created Bitcoin? Because he wanted everyone to keep paying taxes and governments keep printing fiat? Or is it because he was a fan central banking and couldn't wait until Bitcoin is heavily regulated and centrally controlled? You call yourself reasonable, but you didn't even care to learn a bit about why Bitcoin came to be so popular and why it was invented in the first place.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      > Well, why do you suppose Satoshi created Bitcoin? Not relevant, it's not his now, it belongs to the public and his intentions are no more relevant than anyone else's. > You call yourself reasonable, but you didn't even care to learn a bit about why Bitcoin came to be so popular and why it was invented in the first place. I know all about it, so please keep your silly baseless presumptions to yourself.
      - snitko 13y ago
        I'm sorry, but the problem is that due to Bitcoin's inherent properties you cannot completely detach it from political and economic agendas. Its deflationary nature, its pseudonymity, it's decentralization - how do you detach it from the free markets ideology and libertarian ideals? I just don't understand it. I honestly believe you guys are for a big surprise. Go ahead and use Bitcoin, I'm all for it. But don't expect everyone else to keep paying taxes and obey regulations. It's just not going to happen. In fact, the reverse will happen, with more people not willing to participate in government scam. If you truly believe society cannot survive and prosper without government, then the only logical step I see is for you to stop using Bitcoin or even lobby to ban it. If you don't, I'm personally fine with it, but you might regret it.

snitko 13y ago

> There would be no courts for those who cannot afford to pay for them. That's one major difference. There would be no police, fire agencies, etc etc, I highy recommend you watch this video, it's an illustrated talk by David D. Friedman, explaining how police, courts and other things would exist and work in a world without government: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o All of those things are just services. And the poor would be able to afford them too, just like the poor can afford cars, shoes and computers. > So it is outright impossible for groups of people to gather to cause serious violent harm towards members of a minority, leading to loss of life with no potential legal recourse? Is this what you are saying? It's possible, but they'd be paying for violence out of their own pocket. How many people, do you suppose, would oppose gay marriage or, say, pot if they were presented with a bill for outlawing it? My guess most of them would prefer to keep the money and make their peace with it. But because the cost of outlawing certain things is paid by all the taxpayers, they essentially pay for what they believe is right out of everyone else's pockets.

vertex-four 13y ago
> And the poor would be able to afford them too, just like the poor can afford cars, shoes and computers. Most countries have a benefits system which allows the poor a minimum level of quality of life. Additionally, cars, shoes, and computers, are all available second-hand for much reduced prices, because of consumerism. That is how they can afford these things. Are you suggesting that the poor should only be allowed to access lesser court systems than the rich? Why don't you look up fire services in the past - if you did not have the money, which some did not, they would let your house burn to the ground. Why don't you look up medicine today - in the countries where the Government does not provide free-at-point-of-use healthcare, the poor regularly die of very treatable diseases. Your theory that everybody will be able to afford what they need does not work out. > It's possible, but they'd be paying for violence out of their own pocket. We have a history of this happening. It still happens in many countries which have weak or compliant court systems, India for example. I'd suggest you look into how things work out in the real world.
- snitko 13y ago
  > I'd suggest you look into how things work out in the real world. In the real world the rich already have access to "better courts" because they can afford to hire top lawyers. My argument is that it's not going to be necessarily perfect, but simply better and more fair to the poor if government wasn't a monopoly on police and courts. Of course the rich would get better everything. They always will. The point is to improve the lot of ordinary people, not to hurt the rich. If you intend to help the poor by robbing (taxing) the rich, you're trying to do good by doing harm - that's not moral.
  - vertex-four 13y ago
    > In the real world the rich already have access to "better courts" because they can afford to hire top lawyers. And the solution to that is not to encode those inequalities into the fabric and rules of how a society works. It's to try and solve the issue as best as we possibly can.
    - snitko 13y ago
gnaritas 13y ago
Please stop trying to tie Bitcoin to your radical political worldview, you're hurting the adoption of Bitcoin for the reasonable folks among us.
- snitko 13y ago
  Well, why do you suppose Satoshi created Bitcoin? Because he wanted everyone to keep paying taxes and governments keep printing fiat? Or is it because he was a fan central banking and couldn't wait until Bitcoin is heavily regulated and centrally controlled? You call yourself reasonable, but you didn't even care to learn a bit about why Bitcoin came to be so popular and why it was invented in the first place.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > Well, why do you suppose Satoshi created Bitcoin? Not relevant, it's not his now, it belongs to the public and his intentions are no more relevant than anyone else's. > You call yourself reasonable, but you didn't even care to learn a bit about why Bitcoin came to be so popular and why it was invented in the first place. I know all about it, so please keep your silly baseless presumptions to yourself.
    - snitko 13y ago
      I'm sorry, but the problem is that due to Bitcoin's inherent properties you cannot completely detach it from political and economic agendas. Its deflationary nature, its pseudonymity, it's decentralization - how do you detach it from the free markets ideology and libertarian ideals? I just don't understand it. I honestly believe you guys are for a big surprise. Go ahead and use Bitcoin, I'm all for it. But don't expect everyone else to keep paying taxes and obey regulations. It's just not going to happen. In fact, the reverse will happen, with more people not willing to participate in government scam. If you truly believe society cannot survive and prosper without government, then the only logical step I see is for you to stop using Bitcoin or even lobby to ban it. If you don't, I'm personally fine with it, but you might regret it.