Charles Anthony

Our modern tax system is still wrong. It is just more-complicated-collection wrong. All of my arguments and all of your arguments should be the same. A couple of points: 1) it does not make sense to generalize over the whole world nor between past and present; we really do not know 2) I would still say that more tax is wrong and less tax is better 3) in the past, maybe they enjoyed different things that we will never enjoy. For example: maybe they did not have pollution maybe they did not fear nuclear warfare or weapons of mass destruction (things which would not likely to have been developed without the powers of government and taxation) maybe every young person had a 99% of growing up and taking over the father's farm, not having to worry about unemployment or education maybe they respected (or even knew) their neighbors Conversely, there could be a whole host of things that make life easier for us now compared to the past. However, we can not compare. In general, I would say a social structure is wrong if it requires coersion for its support. Taxation is one type of coersion. In what direction do you see things going? Do you think those constructs you list are expanding or becoming obsolete?

I agree with you that it is their prerogative. However, I would not see that as an act of coersion. They have the right to do so and that would be the start of my just punishment. I can not resist playing the devil's advocate here: what do you think will happen if you DID protest tax policy in the only way that you could -- by not paying taxes? I disagree with you. My definition of self-defense is more restrictive. I believe people have the right self-defense if their security of person is threatened but not if they "feel" their security of person is threatened. That would not be self-defense but rather a form of offense. As ridiculous as it may seem, I would permit people to own nuclear weapons. My justification is analogous to a person carrying a deadly disease. If the diseased person is careless they can spread the disease and should suffer the consequences. If the diseased person is carefull they will not spread the disease and should not be treated differently until they threaten another person's safety. Here is a challenge to you: name a weapon that you believe CAN NOT be used primarily for self-defense. ----- Why not? It is bad and getting worse every year. It sounds like you are describing something that would be qualified as "wrong" too. Are you describing foreign invasion or conscription? Be more explicit. If you are talking about conscription and being sent off to war, that is indeed a form of slavery. In other words, cheating.That is not cheating. It is self-defense. The tax-collector is commiting the wrongful act. I do not know how to fix it. I think a good start is for more and more people coming out and having the courage to call taxation for what it truly is: wrong and not a faceless-bureaucratic-government entitlement. After that, more and more people will demand lower taxes. ---- Is the problem that it's 'wrong' or that it doesn't work ?First and foremost: it is wrong. I also believe it works but everybody has a different idea on what works. Nevertheless, even if it did not "work" I would still advocate no-tax because it is wrong. I refer to my stealing-from-Peter-to-give-to-Paul illustration. I ask you: what do you mean by "works"? I will explain no-taxation with respect to your definition. For me the definition of "works" is very simple: nobody forces anybody else against their will. It goes hand-in-hand with no-taxation. No because my definition of "wrong" is limited to coersion: theft and assault. It is physically impossible to steal from somebody who approves. The only way that taxation is not theft is if the tax-payer is not coerced or in other words, is donated willfully. In such an instance, it is no longer taxation and I would not call it theft. The only way to make it a free-will donation is if the "tax-payer" as the option to opt-out. Those pitfalls still represent injustices. I believe this is where your argument fails. Large organizations and governments are still groups people (whose actions are usually un-governed, by the way). Every action can be attributed to the actions of a specific person. Our legal system makes it easy for people to shirk responsibility as members of corporations or governments. However, I insist that they should not be able to get away with crimes which ordinary people could not escape.

Even with Airline #1 that bans it all, they are still checking every peice of luggage for banned items. The wait in the line will be the same for both. Not to mention full body cavity search.No. If Airline 1 finds a bottle in your luggage it is thrown out. They would not bother opening it to see what is inside. Everybody would know that. Nobody would bring containers. The line would be faster.

Maybe "their job" involved examining every single ridiculous container. I think they should ban every stupid container. If their were two airlines: Airline 1: bans all stupid containers (idiot packrat-travellers not accepted) Airline 2: permits all of the stupid containers but makes everybody wait to have all of their stupid containers inspected I would buy my tickets from the Airline 1, thank you very much! and have a safe flight home. Why do people need their own bottled water or their own juice?? They serve you on the plane!

One thing that we will see to "resolve" this issue is basic market forces increasing the prices of passenger flying. Forget about the increase in security for now and just look at the pricing mechanism in the airline industry. They over-book. They have to over-book because people tend to cancel last-minute and the airplane flies with empty seats which would otherwise be filled. Unfortunately, this is the way they must operate to stay competitive. However, it is the over-booking that adds time and frustration. Gradually, prices will rise and it will be more expensive for people to cancel their flights at the last minute. As a result, the need to over-book will decrease. Eventually, there will be less people-who-do-not-know-how-to-pack-luggage going through airports. The transition will be rocky and it will not likely be fast but it will happen.

The original post asked questions about the future of the U.S.A. relative to current events. I never put a time-line "beginning date" in my statement. Maybe I should have to make it clear that I am talking about recent history. You never specified dates either in your post, so your "point is that, before WWII" yadda yadda yadda was not in your original post. Maybe you should have made it clear that you were talking about ancient history. The Monroe Doctrine doesn't apply, at all.So, we agree when it comes to recent history and we disagree when it comes to ancient history. What impression did you want to give?? YOU arbitrarily brought up a specific and irrelevant episode of ancient history. You could have said "Have you ever heard of Magna Carta?" or "Have you ever heard of Pearl Harbor?" or "Have you ever heard of the McCarthy witch-hunts?" or "Have you ever heard of the underground railroad?" or "Have you ever heard of the Wright Brothers?" You are right. I was not clear enough. I should have said "older-than-me-but-younger-than-you" instead and you should have said "in-my-life-time" in your post. You are playing semantics and nothing else.

Should they be edited first?

We have no idea what other videos are out there.

How? and why? Why would you want my support?

When Mammon says it is OK. It certainly isn't going to happen 'just because it is the right thing to do'...I would suggest that a lot of fossil-fuel-industry-crony-capitalism is the main barrier in this market.

Do you really want that much detail documented and RELEASED to the entire world???Who would grant such permission?

I agree. I think you have hit on a seriously good suggestion. Those topics are worthy of a separate category. We should make the suggestion to Greg.

What "age-old" foreign intervention culture? Have you ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine?No. I never heard of it. Thank you for enlightening me. After doing a simple web search, I found the Monroe Doctrine, a speech presented in 1823 by President Monroe to Congress. It seems apparent that the U.S.A. did NOT follow this doctrine of non-intervention in recent history. What is your point? [i will give you this much: the doctrine is selective in its application of non-intervention.] I am suggesting that the U.S.A. should follow this type of doctrine. I return the question to you: have YOU heard of the Monroe Doctrine? Tell us how the principles of this doctrine have been practiced by the U.S.A. in Panama or VietNam or Iraq just to name a few sovereign countries.

Where do you draw the line? Your next statement sounds like you would place limits. Not if the mercenary cops are your employees. Not if there is a universal level playing field. Not if everybody has the right to self-defense. What makes you feel less frightened with our current public police forces being employees of the state?

Welcome to the forum. My recommendation is simple: never be afraid or intimidated to post or ask in the forum and never take (or give) anything personal or get offended. Always have a sense of humor even if it seems nobody else does. Foremost: read rules for this forum. Not all forums are the same. That is exactly what is being said in this defence of anarchy. In simple terms, if nobody forces anybody else to do something against their will, you have anarchy. As a result of this, the natural way of doing commerce and trade without force would be pure capitalism. ---- The link between true anarchy and true capitalism is generally philosophical because both depend on extreme (and not likely achievable) freedom. Commonly, the confusion arises from practical capitalism today. We are NOT living a true capitalist economy. A politician who does a favor for a business friend (or vice versa) is NOT capitalism it is abusing capitalism. I will refer you to a previous post: Theses on Capitalism, Economics which does an excellent job at illustrating the confusion. ---- CAVEAT: In this defence of anarchy, nobody is responsible for anybody else. Charity is fine but nobody is forced to be charitable. Not everybody defines anarchy nor capitalism in this way. Some confused communists and socialists and violent insurgents call themselves anarchists. Their definition of anarchy differs mainly because they impose a sense of responsibility to their fellow man. They would force people to help other people.

No. Iraq will not be the deciding factor. Money will be the deciding factor. I am looking into my anarchist crystal ball and I see: -> in less than 25 years the U.S.A. will turn 180degrees around with respect to its military and foreign policy -> the age-old foreign interventionism culture will disappear -> space research and exploration will be cancelled -> the entire national military will disappear and be replaced by independent state armies All of this will happen due to a soaring public debt, a crash of the American dollar and an inability to afford military funding.

I think it is unavoidable because it is an integral part of our freedom. Otherwise, you would have a monumental task of regulation. The basis of market economies rely on the mechanism of the freeloader taken to the extreme. Imagine an employer that experiences an influx of local labor due to immigration. Wages go down. The employer benefits and the previous employees suffer as a result of a free-riding mechanism. Conversely, imagine being an employer in Alberta now that wages are sky-rocketing. The previous laborers benefit as free-riders. All markets use the same mechanics to varying degrees based on volume and market share. If they coerce me or invade my property, that would certainly not make it right. How would you reconcile my deteriorating house with the market-led depreciation of a mansion in a run-down neighborhood? By imposing a policy either way, you are transfering wealth and not paying for service. Yes I can too. I would expect the primary use of the military is for external threat.Why the distinction between external and internal? I would suggestion a distinction between "govenment" institution and private instituions. For example, tax-funded security/military to protect government officials at home and abroad. Would you pemit the right to keep and bear arms?

Yes. I can see that. No. There is no need to combine them because they would be paid by different parties. 1) The usage fee is paid by the fire department partnered with the fire insurance company. They would pay the city for water use. 2) The fire insurance company takes care of maintenance of the water mains / sewage / infrastructure / whatever in its neighborhood. 3) The fire insurance company transfers costs to the households through premiums. It would be like dental insurance. Also, I just thought of something. The insurance company would probably amalgamate with the other maintenance services: roads, sewage, tree trimming, etc. It could all operate like a condominium complex. Even more: they could hire their own security guards if the neighborhood could afford it! That is not a problem. The fire department sues me and takes my property. It would be easy to demonstrate that my burning house threatened my neighbor. It would be the same as if I plotted to burn my neighbors house from my side of the fence. I should be treated the same way. Actually, it is tolerated all of the time. Imagine I have the smallest house in a rich nieghborhood. The value of my house increases more than if I had a mansion in a run-down neighborhood. I disagree. I can imagine our domestic security being managed with private security companies.

I agree with what you say but not everybody else does and that is the problem. Arguments supporting foreign aid as a service to Canada usually sound like: "By helping poor countries we minimize the chance of wars erupting in trouble spots. Therefore, it is better for Canada if a trading partner is not threatened by war." and I have even heard: "By helping poor countries we keep diseases under control which would otherwise be transfered to Canadians in the future." These grey areas can be manipulated ultimately creating transfers of wealth -- usually with a middleman skimming off the top. Since not everybody will agree upon what constitutes a service, I find it more fair to eliminate the discretion and by denying all of them. The alternative is that the government ends up playing favorites. That sounds like a tough one to combine. However, it might be solved by giving fire brigades individual turf. Hydrants in your neighborhood are owned by one company, That is easy. Whoever owns the land upon which the fire hydrant rests would rent it or have a water meter. The fire company would be charged after using it. Similar to how we charge houses for electricity or water now. Your premium might be based on the insurance coverage of your neighbors. If your neighbor does not have insurance nor collateral, you pay with a higher premium. Also, you can sue your neighbor. I realize that my solution is cold-hearted but it can still cover the bases. It can be treated in the same way as one would deal with spilling pollution and harmful waste into other people's property. It is the "obligation to allies" that isdifficult to circumvent. I do believe that domestic security can be improved if there was less of a monopoly on armed force and self-defense. To play the devil's advocate, I could ask: Currently, is Canada's military fulfilling our obligations to our allies? what are those obligations? Currently, is Canada's military fulfilling our needs for domestic security?

How about you give me some more BS about why they are there??? I call them mercenaries not because I disrespect them. My disrespect goes towards the government because I think the government debases the military by using Canadian soldiers in that way. Not every Canadian agrees with you. Not every Canadian agrees with me. Therefore, the military is being used by the government to represent the interests of some Canadians but not the interests of all Canadians. I realize that the same can be said about the majority of government actions.

Yes, I understand that. I think that both the tax-payers and the military are vulnerable to abuse by the government. That is precisely what I think is wrong.

I think you have struck gold with this principle. This would be an excellent fail-safe. However, I think that if it is applied to all services without exception, we would still get your fair outcome (maybe even better). Thus, it might not be necessary to require the courts to define a service. I am pessimistic. I still feel that it may be vulnerable to abuse and I do not know enough about legislation to see a fail-safe. Please give me an example. I understand. What I envision is a combination between fire insurance companies establishing partnerships with private fire brigades. For example, you want a house financed, the finance company requires insurance and the insurance company has its own alarm system and fire rescue company. Simultaneously, with your opt-out clause, every house owner will also be able to get coverage through the tax-funded public fire department. If it is possible in the market for a private fire brigade to deliver service effectively or better, it will survive. Opting-out would provide that market incentive. I was thinking of something like the military which needs to be a unified force for defense of the country.This is a tricky service to reconcile. Naively, I would say: "Easy! Cancel the federal military!" and see small scale private security companies fill in the voids. As an aside, crony-military-industry-companies in the Middle East hire their own security companies when they are doing construction. In war zones, these "security guards" are effectively mercenaries. My cynicism takes over and I think we can extrapolate and learn from their example. I firmly believe that the vast majority of war is commercially based.

People enjoy soap operas and dirt. It makes politics exciting and gives a human face. A "divide" between leading politicians makes people talk about them. Remember the "Chretien-Martin" divide? All of the people who liked Chretien, liked Chretien more because of the battle. All of the people who liked Martin, liked Martin even more because he would save the party. On-the-fence-liberals either took sides or felt comfortable that SOMEBODY will rescue Canada and still be able to fight the Conservatives. Also, since Chretien will eventually leave and Martin eventually take over, all Liberals have an out: this is a new party -- not to be associated with the old party. All Liberals are happy together again -- except for Sheila Copps. Believe it or not, I have heard people tell me that there was never animosity between Chretien and Martin. Never. Go figure. I do not know who to believe about that but we will likely see the same thing with the Conservatives later in the future. I do not think this is a deliberately planned out strategy. It just seems like once the ball starts rolling, human nature takes over and this is the result that we get.

Global warming and CO2... where have we had this discussion before. Clean coal is a pretty reasonable direction to head in, and I think its a great idea overall. My bigger environmental concerns over global warming (all natural I assure you!) is water pollution and damage by expansion and industrial development. I am concerned about what further development into coal will do to the environment... have you seen a strip mine? Burning more coal! Ahh! Clean energy is staring us in the face! When are we going to promote large-scale wind-power throughout the country?!?!?

Oh, the tables of taxation have turned! Technically, I would expect the government to have a personal tax exemption from "the law" but you are still benefiting from the proceeds of crime. I agree with that. However, the nature in which you sold the signal makes it slightly more complicated and hard to beat. It sounds like you breached a contract or committed fraud. Inherent in the encrytion of the signal is a EULA of sorts. By decrypting it, you explicitly agree to the terms of the DTV company. There are two possibilities, I am not clear how you sold it precisely. 1) if you told customers "This is a pirated and illegal signal that I am selling." and the customers agreed, both of you broke the DTV contract. 2) if you made the customers believe it was a legitimate signal, you committed fraud and you should expect the DTV company AND the customers (if they wanted) to claim damages as previously suggested in the post.