/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.10801808]

>Taxes are an essential part of society!

[Anonymous No.10801937]

well, they are. its just that 10 billion dollars goes into something like college of modern arts and putting ghetto kids in college

our society would be a lot better, if americans had some sort of choice of where tax money went into.

[Anonymous No.10801940]

Who else gonna pay for my neetbux wagie

[Anonymous No.10801978]

>>10801937
That would be too ideal. I would love to see liberal states vote to spend their money on immigrants and welfare programs while everything else goes to shit around them.

[Anonymous No.10801996]

>>10801808
Fair taxes would be 10% of the current ones. They should go to common goods like police, army and roads, not social welfare.

[Anonymous No.10801998]

>>10801808
Taxes pay for firefighters, roads, stoplights, elections, sewers, some utilities, the legal system, etc.

Go live in a mountain shed if you want.

[Anonymous No.10802021]

>>10801808
Fresco my office NOW!

[Anonymous No.10802058]

>>10801998
Everything you listed is a minority expense. Health and education is also social welfare, debt wouldn't exist without it - much lower taxes would be enough.

[Anonymous No.10802067]

>>10801937
When you have choice over where your money goes to, it's called paying for privately provided goods and services.
>taxation is theft

[Anonymous No.10802086]

>>10802058
>Literally paying to have mosques built in your neighborhood to cater to people that hate you and want you dead
>Welfare for those very same people
>Free health care and education for them
I thought burger taxes were bad.

[Anonymous No.10802096]

>>10802058
How is this allowed? How are people okay with this? Why do I always see people complain about the system but nothing ever changes?

[Anonymous No.10802121]

>>10801808
Good news!

Your options are personally taking care of your grandma and grandpa, being drafted into a hastily scrambled army during the every-couple-decades world war when there isn't a single superpower dominating the world, fending off the occasional communist mob of hungry, homeless people, or cutting the Gordian knot of healthcare bureaucracy.

Each one you opt for saves you a quarter of your tax bill.

[Anonymous No.10802181]

>>10801978
ikr.
>>10802067
no its not you dumb fucking brainlet. heres of list of things 35% of your gains goes to. we should have the optoon to decide what of the things on this our money goes to. if i, as an american, want 35% of my tax dollars going towards a new death laser research for the military instead of liberal arts school, i should be allowed to. or if i want it to go to disease research instead of aiding illegal immigrant families i should have the right to.

im not spending that 35% on mcdonalds i think the government should just give americans more variety on what tax money goes to.

[Anonymous No.10802188]

>>10802096
It's just incentives.

Debt, "reckless spending", these kinds of things are diffuse and a minor irritation for maybe half of voters.

However a "Churches to Mosques" welfare/reconstruction program funded by it will lock up the votes of the Muslim and construction lobbies though. Which means it passes.

Taleb's got an excellent writeup here: http://fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf

[Anonymous No.10802204]

>>10801998
>implying you need taxes have any of that
All grocery stores in my once communist country were built, owned, and operated by the state before 1991.
But surely all those other industries provided by the state are different and cannot be improved through profit incentives, competition, and being contractually paid for rather than relying on armed robbery for funding.

[Anonymous No.10802247]

>>10802181
If you got to decide what your money went to, it wouldn't be taxation. A tax is money expropriated against someone's will so other people can decided what your money is spent on.

[Anonymous No.10802269]

>>10802247
Its still against your will you just get to pick where it goes.

Its like someone kidnapping you and asking if you want them to fuck your face or ass but you are getting fucked either way. It doesn't mean you aren't getting raped.

[Anonymous No.10802294]

>>10802269
>Its still against your will you just get to pick where it goes.
This is logically self-contradictory. If *I* got to decide where it went, none of it would go to the government. I would pay it to private businesses and causes of my own choosing.

[Anonymous No.10802311]

>>10802294
It really isn't. You are losing a percentage of your money to the government. You merely get to decide where based on the given choices they allow you where it goes within those choices.

It is still taxation you just have a degree more control over it.

[Anonymous No.10802314]

>>10802247
Elections just shift that one level though, don't they? You trust your congressman to allocate the levels of funding.

Why not split off that power, if only for budgets, and only to some degree? You assign 10% of your tax dollars, yearly, just like going to the DMV or voting. Congress can stay plenty busy allocating the other 90% and naming post offices.

[Anonymous No.10802323]

They are but income tax and sales taxes are literally the niggers of taxes

[Anonymous No.10802327]

Is there any way to make profit LEGALLY without being taxed? Or is literally the only way to not pay tax to hide money from the government?

[Anonymous No.10802330]

>>10802311
I agree that having more control would be better than none, but wouldn't you agree that having total control over one's money and how you spend it would be ideal?

[Anonymous No.10802347]

>>10802327
Religion. We need a church of crypto

[Anonymous No.10802354]

>>10802323
Official taxation power rankings:

>War reparations ("Take the oil")
>Tariffs (aka fuck your cheap chink shit)
>User fees
>Excise taxes
>Income taxes
>Payroll taxes (aka income taxes plus accounting bullshit)
>Sales taxes (just because they fuck with price tags)
>Capital gains taxes (obviously)

[Anonymous No.10802357]

>>10802096
America is very heavily subsidizing the military defense of European countries (and many other regions). These are basically vassal states of the U.S.

Because they have collective sovereignty (voting) and a subsidized defense the incentive is to become effeminate moochers. It's all a ridiculous clownshow and very shameful.

[Anonymous No.10802365]

>>10802330
Its a mix. I think it would be ideal for people to be able to allocate all of their money as they wish in an ideal society.

In practice however it would be catastrophic to suddenly give people control of where their taxes go or if they even have any.

[Anonymous No.10802394]

>>10802365
>In practice however it would be catastrophic to suddenly give people control of where their taxes go or if they even have any.
Why?

[Anonymous No.10802413]

>>10802365
>In practice however it would be catastrophic to suddenly give people control of where their taxes go or if they even have any.

But imagine lobbyists having to lobby like any other mass marketer.

[Anonymous No.10802444]

>>10802394
Most people don't care about their community and if they did don't understand the nuances of how their taxes should be spread out to actually achieve their goals.

They also don't know how their neighbors are allocating so you could very easily end up with a lot of people with good intentions but zero communication resulting in everything going directly to education with zero infrastructure or emergency services.

Or if given the option to simply keep their tax money the large majority of people would and none of that would go to up-keep.

Optional taxes really only work when people care about where they live. The option to select your tax allocation is only effective when the population is educated and communicating or there is some feedback on where the current allocation is going which also requires them to again care about their community.

[Anonymous No.10802462]

>>10802444
>Optional taxes really only work when people care about where they live
It's almost like government should be small and local and humanity should live in thousands of city-states rather than dozens of larger countries spanning continents.

[Anonymous No.10802464]

Why does America need to spend so much on (((defence)))? They have enough nukes and we all know no one will attack them anyways.

[Anonymous No.10802498]

>>10802444
>Most people don't care about their community and if they did don't understand the nuances of how their taxes should be spread out to actually achieve their goals.

You could leave budget proxies in place. "I want congressman X to allocate 100% of my tax dollars instead of just 90%".

>not knowing what neighbors have allocated as

This is the 21st century and the budget process doesn't happen overnight. You can have people allocate on the same timeframe as they do their taxes and post the running tally on allocations from January through to April 15th. Procrastinators then get max information, while enough people "get it out of the way" to have a decent sample.

>caring about the community
A continuous, yearly process like dynamic spending allocation is going to be much less contentious and confrontational than our current biannual/quadrennial winner-take-all elections. Lower stakes.

[Anonymous No.10802509]

>>10802464
Need to keep sea lanes open for global trade and spend enough to make contesting us completely unfeasible.

Just consider our spending as split up over the rest of the OECD.

[Anonymous No.10802538]

>>10802444
Most people do care about themselves, that's why in a free society they would pay private companies to build infrastructure and emergency services for them.

Why the is the up-keep of the government necessary? Isn't the government what's standing between you and having full control of your money, something which you described as an ideal society? As such, shouldn't the government be abolished?

[Anonymous No.10802563]

>>10802538
The problem is you are basically describing the formation of a government.
>We need to build infrastructure and emergency services
>Okay doing it individually is a problem so why don't we create a group of people selected from our ranks to act on our behalf
>They will collect the money to pay for they infrastructure and services and enforce the rules we decide upon

It is just a matter of scale. The government isn't so much a problem but rather the power people grant to it. It should be a proxy for the people and acting in their interests. The fact that it isn't is the problem and not that it exists at all. It is a natural structure that humans create.

[Anonymous No.10802613]

>>10802563
Why do I need representatives to pay a private company for its goods and services? It doesn't extort money from me, so in which sense is it like a government?

[Anonymous No.10802633]

>>10801937

>our society would be a lot better, if americans had some sort of choice of where tax money went into.

I do not have faith in the average American to make decisions that impact the lives of others. We would end up spending 100% of our money on a giant golden toilet so people can flush their dreams down the drain.

[Anonymous No.10802648]

>>10802613
>Why do I need representatives to pay a private company
For what service exactly? Do you plan on building roads and bridges with your capital alone? Personally fund the police?
You live in a community like it or not and unless you are some billionaire you can't pay for the things you need by yourself. The community has to engage together to purchase such things.

[Anonymous No.10802663]

>>10802633
So you think most people are idiots, but you seem to trust the average politician elected by them to know better. I don't think people are such idiots though. With the remaining half of their money that's not stolen by the government, does the average person buy golden toilets, or things that they actually care about, such as food and education for their children?

[Anonymous No.10802664]

>>10802613
The argument is that as bad as, say, Paul Ryan is at divvying up spending and planning for the long term, he's better than the average person.

So yeah, it sucks he's misallocating tax dollars relative to you, but he's improving the allocation of tax dollars that come from a greater number of spendthrift morons.

[Anonymous No.10802681]

>>10802648
>Do you plan on building roads and bridges with your capital alone?

Yes, the US has toll roads and for decades of explosive growth managed to make due with, often locally owned, turnpike corporations.

>Personally fund the police?
We have private security for rich people and otherwise budget conscious consumers can't beat the response time of a gun. There's more flex here than you think.

[Anonymous No.10802691]

>>10802648
Of course not, as naturally I wouldn't be that road or police company's only customer. It's like I don't have to have my own ISP to get internet service, I just pay a subscription fee to a large ISP with lots of other customers.

[Anonymous No.10802721]

>>10802681
>>10802691
I am genuinely curious as to how you think police companies would work. One of the biggest problems with the whole no government thing is law enforcement.

Do different companies have different laws? Is their duty to protect you regardless? What is to stop them from actually extorting you lest you be killed by them? It really seems like the situation you are describing is a hell where corporations are far worse than the government is right now.

[Anonymous No.10802740]

>>10802721
Oh and another question. What about foreign invaders? How are those dealt with? Military?

[Anonymous No.10802755]

>>10802664
My argument is that Paul Ryan shouldn't be controlling and spending my money at all, as I'm the one who earned it am the most likely person to know how to best spend it, especially if I'm motivated to act rationally by personal responsibility for my actions. I also shouldn't be paying for the government acting as a babysitter for those spenthrift morons, whose self-discipline would also improve if the government would stop making choices for them and giving them my money.

[Anonymous No.10802792]

>>10802721
>>10802740
I'm not advocating abolishing the police or military. Centralization is important for collective defense, especially when you're a rich enough country worth invading/extorting, wars come irregularly enough (and are often won by those with otherwise inefficient investment during peacetime), and there are tail elements (a government that can fund a nuclear program is more than 10x more powerful than 10 smaller corporations).

Nevertheless there's a reason rent-a-cops exist.

>>10802755
I agree. An opt-out system for things like SS, dynamic spending like we're proposing, these are unqualified good things. I'm just presenting the counterargument(s) that stand in the way. We have to come up with something better than "it's my money and I want it now".

[Anonymous No.10802810]

I'm ok with taxes in a all white society. We have less bottom feeders to pick up from the bottom.

When brown people get in your country, forget about it. Notice how we stopped going to the moon after civil rights and immigration changes in 1965.

Space money turns into gibs money.

[Anonymous No.10802832]

>>10802633
Yes goy, don't trust the people! That's why we don't do direct votes on gay marriage or immigration. We let the politicians decide!

We must leave these important decisions to the dual citizens in the government! They put us first!

[Anonymous No.10802881]

>>10802721
Police companies would enforce the private law of the suffering party or jurisdiction, as well as contracts. To prevent an overcomplication of legal interactions, people would mostly live in contractual jurisdictions where they voluntarily agree on common rules, or accept the private law of a landlord whose property they choose to live on.

What would prevent private security companies from turning into governments is a demonopolization of the industry. A private police or court that does its job poorly will lose reputation and customers to other companies, as well as face legal and forcible action from them.

Although people would likely choose to form communities on an ethnic basis, there wouldn't be nation states in the current sense, so the concept of a foreign invader becomes moot. It's just another gang that's dealth with by security companies.

If you're interested, you could look up anarcho-capitalism on Wiki.

[Anonymous No.10802890]

>>10802810
So happy to see that logo anywhere. Best show in podcasting.

[Anonymous No.10802905]

>>10801937
It's called voting dumbass

[Anonymous No.10803039]

>>10802881
That might be the most short-sighted and idealistic and detached thing thing I have ever read that wasn't coming out of a communist mouth.

[Anonymous No.10803157]

>>10803039
An emotional reaction, understandable. I used to be a small-government type, and when I learned about ancap, at first my reaction was the same. We are indoctrinated in government schools for two decades since early childhood and then by the media our whole lives to believe these parasites useful and that their theft and enslavement actually benefit us, so I don't blame you for not changing your mind immediately. Look at the reasons why you want more control over your taxes and you will find that all the same reasons taken to their logical conclusion lead one to wanting absolute control over oneself and one's property and a society free from aggressive violence.

[Anonymous No.10803174]

>>10801808
fuck off dick nose

[Anonymous No.10803212]

>>10803157
It isn't an emotional reaction it is a purely logical one. I know exactly why I want full control of my myself and my property.

I am however not naive enough to think that a bunch of unaffiliated warlords who are paid in some unknown denomination for their service and protection are going to be able to stand up or match the resources of virtually any nation.

What you are describing will inevitably end with one corporation/warlord becoming dominant and establishing what is essentially a government or some outside force will conquer. This is the same problem communists have. They ignore the human nature completely because it runs contradictory to their ideals.

[Anonymous No.10803247]

>>10803212
See, if it wasn't an emotional reaction, it would contain arguments.

[Anonymous No.10803251]

>>10803247
What arguments are you looking for that I haven't provided? Make specific points and I will answer them considering your original response is "I know better than you".

[Anonymous No.10803287]

>>10801978
Fucking spot on dude, watch how quickly they suddenly turn against mass immigration.
>>10801937
I always thought just getting a letter every year breaking down exactly where your tax dollars were spent would suddenly make everyone vote more intelligently.

[Anonymous No.10803309]

>>10802086
Pretty pathetic isn’t it.

[Anonymous No.10803312]

>>10802464
Someone has to protect Israel.

[Anonymous No.10803349]

>>10801808
Gotta destroy money somehow if you don't want hyperinflation.

[Anonymous No.10803414]

>>10803349
dude if you understand money how to u even respond to the idiots

[Anonymous No.10803508]

>>10803251
For example, I've addressed your question regarding security companies going rogue:

>What would prevent private security companies from turning into governments is a demonopolization of the industry. A private police or court that does its job poorly will lose reputation and customers to other companies, as well as face legal and forcible action from them.

to which you've presented no counterargument and simply went on to state the opposite case with no basis.

Regarding your other claim, why would a major security company or a coaltion of companies not be able to stand up to a government attack, given that they are selected by the market for their efficiency, that they are profit-driven and only get paid if successful in protecting their customers, and that their funding is willingly provided by individuals and businesses in a free capitalist economy, who in the absence of coercion and taxation generate more wealth and can thus afford more gunpower than the slaves of a government, who are unwillingly extorted from and who are poorer as a result of state interference in their economies?

[Anonymous No.10803575]

>>10803508
>What would prevent private security companies from turning into governments is a demonopolization of the industry. A private police or court that does its job poorly will lose reputation and customers to other companies, as well as face legal and forcible action from them.

Monopolies are natural. it is why governments exist in the first place. If you were to remove the government right now eventually the most efficient and effective company would have a monopoly. That has been proven out throughout human history.

> given that they are selected by the market for their efficiency, that they are profit-driven and only get paid if successful in protecting their customers, and that their funding is willingly provided by individuals and businesses in a free capitalist economy, who in the absence of coercion and taxation generate more wealth and can thus afford more gunpower than the slaves of a government, who are unwillingly extorted from and who are poorer as a result of state interference in their economies?

That is an assload of assumptions but let us break it down.
>given that they are selected by the market for their efficiency, that they are profit-driven and only get paid if successful in protecting their customers

From what is the first question. Police level matters differ from ICBMs and deploying forces against other nations along with the diplomacy related things.

>And that their funding is willingly provided by individuals and businesses in a free capitalist economy
Firstly what is the currency that is being used in this free capitalist economy? There is no central organization distributing money which is accepted as legal tender. Also willingly is questionable because if everyone else is paying for their defense and you live near them why spend your money?

[Anonymous No.10803600]

>>10803508
>>10803575
>who in the absence of coercion and taxation generate more wealth and can thus afford more gunpower than the slaves of a government
Affording is one thing and manufacturing is another. Not to mention those corporations whose services you are buying aren't going to let you own a tank or buy a nuke either. They are concerned about their own ass and potential competition as well and have the means to brutally murder any that might start. The free market is only so free when you can murder the competition when they put their first sign up.

>who are unwillingly extorted from and who are poorer as a result of state interference in their economies?
The individual is absolutely poorer because of it but ignoring the value of a centralized power structure for the defense of your nation and the enforcement of laws is crazy.

[Anonymous No.10803646]

>>10801937
see >>10802067 and think about it long and hard
if you can't imagine a society without taxes, then the society that you imagine is plagued with misery and "people" taking advantage of others
the reason for this is that economic action is in the hands of central planners and bureaucrats
the higher the taxes, the less power in the economy the individual has, and the less that the population gets exactly what they want—this includes the products that they want, the residency that they want, the jobs that they want, services, etc.
society rots and mental illness thrives when taxation and regulation are stepped up

[Anonymous No.10803866]

the only reason why the state exist is because you have seisable assets

good luck trying to get the NEET private keys

[Anonymous No.10803977]

>>10803646
>if you can't imagine a society without taxes,

That's not called a society, it's called "the wilderness"

And you're welcome to go live there anytime.

[Anonymous No.10803993]

>>10803575
Monopolies can only be sustained by preferential regulatory treatment of certain companies over others. In a free market, anything like a monopoly that begins to abuse its position or just loses efficiency as a result of getting too big gets quickly supplanted by competitors in the absense of lobbying, licensing, coercive copyright and patent law, and other barriers for free entry to the market created by the government.

What exactly is it about about ICBMs that makes you want to entrust them to institutions of organized extortion that regularly wage wars against each other over gaining control of more people to extort from?

The currencies used in a free society are ones chosen by the market for their properties in mediating trade. Since you're on /biz/, surely you're aware of crypto, widely used on the black market? Or gold, which served as a medium of exchange for thousands of years before governments replaced it with their infinitely inflationary and centrally controlled fiat scam?

If you're not paying for defense, you don't get defense, and you probably won't be allowed to live in a contractual jurisdiction that has a collective defense contract; therefore, you are motivated to pay for defense.

Why wouldn't people be able to have guns manufactured if they can afford it, how does that even make logical sense?
If you agree that freedom brings prosperity, what *is* then the value of a "centralized power structure" enslaving you?
Are you going to just ignore my reasoning as to why security companies would serve as a check on each other, as well as the economic factors I've addressed - profit incentives resulting in efficiency, competition and market selection, and freedom resulting in wealth--resulting in security?

[Anonymous No.10804021]

>>10803977
Not having extortion is wilderness? I would contend just the opposite, taxation a.k.a. theft is antithetical to a civilized productive society.

[Anonymous No.10804051]

>>10803993
This really is going nowhere. You have this problem where you decided the word "Government" is the problem.

I will address one last point.
> In a free market, anything like a monopoly that begins to abuse its position or just loses efficiency as a result of getting too big gets quickly supplanted by competitors in the absense of lobbying, licensing, coercive copyright and patent law, and other barriers for free entry to the market created by the government.

Those free market companies that arrive first will simply collude and create their own barriers to entry. There is really no such thing as a free market because as stated you can freely gun down the competition. Those barriers to entry are always going to exist and will be worse.

I'm going to say the same thing I say to communists when they say that the rich are to blame for everything and society would be perfect if they got their way. Show me a successful society based on your ideals and I will show you 20 based on mine.

[Anonymous No.10804175]

>>10804051
And what barriers exactly would they be able to create without a regulator? By trying to set up their own government? If their customers were dissatisfied they would take their business to competitors who are not part of the collusion - that's how 19th century cartels all failed - who would then thwart these nefarious attempts. The interdependence between freedom/productivity and wealth also makes people the more rich and powerful the more efficient in doing their job they are, which in this case protecting private property, which makes a scenario where established security companies violate private property by creating a government even less likely.

The current economy is a mixed one, and all of the prosperity it enjoys is thanks to productivity and trade, not coercion and theft. This has also been true historically as societies always get the richer the less government and the more voluntaryism they espouse.

This isn't a very productive discussion because I'm explaining *why* government is the problem, while you're ignoring my arguments and presenting none of your own.

[Anonymous No.10804201]

>>10804175
>This isn't a very productive discussion because I'm explaining *why* government is the problem, while you're ignoring my arguments and presenting none of your own.

This isn't very productive because you ignore every argument I present in favor of saying the government and completely ignoring human nature and history in favor of some idealistic society.

[Anonymous No.10804228]

>there are ancaps in this thread

[Anonymous No.10804273]

>>10801998
>firefighters
Get paid to do fuck all because there’s never any fires
>Roads
Look like complete shit, would be better maintained by the private sector
>stoplights
Gee thanks
>elections
Oh good, my tax dollars pay to elect some fuckwit to penny pinch out of the coin purse
>sewers
Flint is a prime example of what happens when you leave sewage up to the government
>the legal system
O yea im laffin

[Anonymous No.10804278]

>>10804021
Name a civilized and productive society that has no taxation at all

[Anonymous No.10804288]

>mfw my country taxes me assloads for boomer's retirement and healthcare, that I will never ever see. Also fucking migrants that get gov housing, food, and free shit for a bigger worth than my salary

[Anonymous No.10804295]

>>10802721
pretty much, without government, giant corporations would become cartels

[Anonymous No.10804296]

>>10804288
Actually most of your taxes go to the military so we.can sit here and flex on all the land we've taken in the last couple centuries.

[Anonymous No.10804316]

>>10803993
If ancap societies are so efficient and powerful why isn't it the dominant form of economics and governance? Why can't I find any thriving ancap econonomies?

[Anonymous No.10804329]

>>10801808
Need to end the tax loopholes. Businesses are reaping massive profits, hoarding cash, and exporting jobs. And make real estate owners pay taxes too.
Am tired of paying taxes on my paper gains when businessman and re get all the brakes...

[Anonymous No.10804330]

>>10804316
Look at mexico! Just ignore the ungodly amounts of homicide!

[Anonymous No.10804367]

>>10804201
Arguments such as? You simply state things ad nauseam without a "because."

As already explained and ignored by you, "human nature is bad" logically cannot be a justification for governments, since governments consist of humans. Labelling something as "idealistic" is not an argument either.

[Anonymous No.10804372]

>>10804367
I'm actually talking to a wall.

[Anonymous No.10804383]

>>10804278
>it's 1800
>name one country where heavier than air aircraft have been invented
>therefore they cannot/should not be invented

Do you see your logical error? I will also refer you to an earlier post I made in this regard:

>The current economy is a mixed one, and all of the prosperity it enjoys is thanks to productivity and trade, not coercion and theft. This has also been true historically as societies always get the richer the less government and the more voluntaryism they espouse.

[Anonymous No.10804410]

Invention of cryptos opened the Pandora's box.
It doesn't even matter anymore whether you think paying taxes is necessary for muh society.
Every single human is incentivized to not pay taxes for their own benefit. Crypto is the perfect tool for that, people just need more time to realize it.
This will reduce the power of nation states dramatically, they will be as irrelevant as the church is now.
This is not a matter of opinion, but an inevitable outcome of new technology.

[Anonymous No.10804412]

>>10804383
you will literally have slavery in ancap society. Nothing to stop me from kidnapping your family and forcing them to work for me if it makes me more money to pay the "security" forces who would eventually lay claim to the land and prevent other "security" forces from entering the land unchecked.

[Anonymous No.10804417]

>>10804316
Because not enough people are aware of and are spreading and implementing anarcho-capitalist ideas yet. Useful ideas and inventions do not get immediate recognition and adoption, e.g. the Internet did not immediately catch on. Ancap did not even exist as a defined ideology until half a century ago and didn't enter mainstream awareness probably until these past few years.

[Anonymous No.10804454]

>>10804412
Why do you think profit-driven, contractually hired, market-selected for efficiency, and demonopolized and thus check-and-balanced security companies would not be able to protect me from slavery, you forcibly kidnapping my family, and armed gangs laying claim to geographical areas and extorting from their population, which are all things happening under governments as a matter of actual fact right now, and none of which lead to prosperity/purchasing power (to buy guns)? I suggest you go back and re-read what I've laid out for the other anon.

[Anonymous No.10804471]

>>10804454
>happening under governments as a matter of actual fact right now
>and none of which lead to prosperity/purchasing

[Anonymous No.10804507]

>>10804471
Yes, I should have said it results in comparatively low purchasing power, as opposed to one attained by productivity and trade in a free economy, but that's why I referred to earlier in this conversation as I arleady made this point >>10803508

[Anonymous No.10804544]

>>10804507
>not being able to have your own private mercenary rave
>results in comparatively low purchasing power
You're so deep in your theoretical framework it's not even funny. Work on the axioms that you are working from.

[Anonymous No.10804570]

>>10804454
They have no reason to if I pay more by using you. They also would stamp out competition because if the competition can't get to your customers then its not competition at all. Sure you can run away to another place but the other place will be doing the same thing because thats how they keep people paid.

[Anonymous No.10804627]

>>10801996
why do people repeat this dumb fucking shit

no social welfare => less overall wealth

on an ethical level you're fucking sick in the head, and on an economical level you're missing the big picture

t. citizen of a sane first world country

disgusting burgers

[Anonymous No.10804663]

>>10804627
state run welfare programs are less direct, and thus more wasteful, than traditional social welfare arrangements like families and churches. further, the state has much less stake and effect in making welfare recipients productive again.

[Anonymous No.10804732]

>>10804663
explain your excessive inequality

free school and healthcare should be mandatory; you will invariably end up with a huge percentage of your population perpetually fucked if you don't provide equal opprotunity

being born in america is a fucking crapshoot, if you are a bit unlucky your life could just be fucked from the get go

[Anonymous No.10804906]

>>10804570
They do - they can make more money in the long run by providing actual protection services rather than banditism for hire because they build a reputation and a client base, because if they follow the non-agression principle other agencies that follow it will not retaliate against them, and because they improve their socioeconomic environment by being peaceful and productive. I realize not everyone understands this, but in the long run the market and very simple economic mechanisms - the dependence of prosperity on productivity, and the deleterious effects of coercion on prosperity - select for private firms that actually provide quality justice. Also, free competition between private protection agencies, having multiple independent ones rather than one coercive monopoly, serves as a check on any individual ones going evil.

>>10804544
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.10804916]

>>10804627
Forcible wealth redistribution punishes productivity by forcibly taking money from those who produce, and rewards parasitism by giving other people's money to those who don't. It removes incentives to be productive for both, greatly lowering everyone's wealth.

[Anonymous No.10804934]

>>10804732
Equality doesn't exist, you can spend 1 million on the education of every black kid in America and you would still end up with an white and asian kids outperforming them by a lot. We have tried to uplift them in the West during the last 50 years and not only it didn't work but we have massacred our school system and academia in the process. Should we have spent money on soft eugenics during the same period we would be in a vastly superior society in all domains, the US could currently experience a civilizational golden age instead of being a degenerate corrupt idiocracy on the decline.

[Anonymous No.10804976]

>>10804934
Exactly. Also getting free gibs from the government prevents the poor from taking personal responsibility and actually working on improving their condition, it only makes them dependent. Poverty levels in America were rapidly declining during the 19th and early 20th century, and stopped declining after the government implemented "the war on poverty" welfare programs, which had the opposite effect.