Taxation is Coercion

[Hydesland]

This is basically 40 pages of semantics.

[Bendira]

This is basically 40 pages of semantics.

All debates typically involved 99% semantic arguments, and 1% actual relevant argument.

[Coccygia]

This is basically 40 pages of semantics.

All debates typically involved 99% semantic arguments, and 1% actual relevant argument.

You're lucky if you get 1%, from my experience...

[United Dependencies]

This is basically 40 pages of semantics.

People try to prove they're correct any way they can.

[Hydesland]

All debates typically involved 99% semantic arguments, and 1% actual relevant argument.

The problem in this case is that the relevant argument IS semantics, the proposition in the OP is a semantic one, this thread is pointless.

[Bendira]

All debates typically involved 99% semantic arguments, and 1% actual relevant argument.

The problem in this case is that the relevant argument IS semantics, the proposition in the OP is a semantic one, this thread is pointless.

Typically any statement you make is a semantic one. Any true or false statement you assert is based on the words you used.

[Brickistan]

Unless they aren't.

Private industry will ONLY do what is good for private industry. That's not a criticism, but it is the reality - if something will cost more than it will profit, private industry is NEVER going to do it.

Agree so far.

So, if the cost of stringing and maintaining powerlines to an isolated community is greater than the estimated profit, that isolated community never gets mains power. If expanding the road network to a distant city is costlier than the expected gain, everybody better buy four-wheel drives if they want to get anywhere.

What is your point? Because what I get out of this, is that this isolated community shouldn't exist out in the middle of no where and expect services.

My point is that under a tax system, unlike under a privatized system, they'll get them. Living in Oz, I get a pretty different view on this than most - because "isolated" here means muh more than it does elsewhere. And cities like Perth and Darwin would be totally cut off from the rest of the country if it wasn't for government maintained infrastructure that private industry would never have been interested in creating.

Private industry may be able to provide goods and services cheaply. But they will only be willing to if there's a profit to be made - no profit, no services.

I agree.

So you believe it is morally acceptable for me to be forced to pay for some person that goes and builds a house in the middle of no where, where an entire road system and power system will have to be run to their house?

Right, let’s force the farmers, miners, lumber jacks, oil workers, fishers, and indeed everybody else whose job takes them away from major cities and force them to move to the city. Never mind that we need their services out there in the middle of nowhere and that we need to transport the goods they produce into the cities.

You’re “forced” to pay for the infrastructure that allows people to live in the middel of nowhere because it’s vital to society as a whole...

You have no idea how capitalism works . Its almost sad that you guys are such trolls. The example he gave was a person living out in the middle of no where without anything to offer to society. Obviously if there is somebody giving something to society that society values, roads would be built as a means to transport these goods back to society. You guys all make fun of the invisible hand of the free market. I don't mean to be offensive, but the reason why is because you have no grasp on reality, economics or cause and effect relationships.

There are few dozen fisher family living in the bank of the river - why exactly will private companies bother to provide roads, postal service etc there? They aren't going to make any profit from there anyway.

Ok, if they aren't making any profit, they WON'T build roads. So obviously if these families expect services, they shouldn't live there. You guys keep changing the scenario. You make the issue a moving target, and whenever I defeat one of your illogical arguments, you create another in its place. Here, I will give you guys an economics lesson so you can stop making these stupid arguments.

Why your argument is fail.

I am a fishermen, and I have decided to live out in the middle of no where. In our society, many times infrustructure is built for me to live. Of course this is unfair, because other peoples tax dollars are paying for MY decision to live way outside society.

In an anarhco-capitalist system, nobody would be forced to pay for his actions. So if he is a fishermen, and builds a house in the middle of no where, he wouldn't receive services.

However, if he catches enough fish each year to make building a road and extending services to his house economical, then the services would obviously be built for him. This is because society would benefit by providing these services. He could even have the services from the very beggining, if he impresses an investor enough.

Now lets take the inevitable stupid question that will follow, which is "what if somebody mines a really rare type of ore, and he dosn't mine enough for society to find it valuable, but it is still necessary for society". Well don't let your little head explode Jimmy, even though you are completely retarded. Because if thats the case, obviously this rare ore would have something we who understand economics would call "scarcity". And because of this, the ore's value would he high enough that it would be economically beneficial to extend services to him.

So, I’m a troll, eh? That’s a first...

Ok then, let me ask you a question: how do you define a person’s worth?

From your posts it seems that you define it solely by profit. Well, in that case most of the professors whose lectures I attended at uni better start packing and moving into a city. ‘Cause while they might be very smart persons, certainly a lot smarter and far more knowledgeable than the average person, there isn’t a whole lot of profit to be gotten from their research. So I guess they don’t get a road. Or water. Or electricity. Or sanitation. Or anything else for that matter, despite having spent a lifetime furthering humanity’s understanding of theoretical mathematics and computing. But no. No profit, no worth...
In fact, a lot of science and research would be lost as there’s no benefit, when defined as being profit, associated with it.


In any case, back to our friend: the Friendly Fisherman. Let’s say he can make $100.000 per year (just to throw a number out there) provided that he can get his catch transported to a processing plant. Well, society has kindly provided him with a road and Tom the Trucker is only too happy to transports the fish from the harbour to the processing plant – for a modest payment, of course. So far, so good. Both our Friendly Fisherman and Tom the Trucker makes a decent living. As does Mike the Mechanic, who makes sure that both boat and truck is kept in working condition, Truckers Inc. who sold the truck, Asphalt Inc. who maintains the road, Processors Inc. who processes the fish, Fish-Mart who sells the fish, at a profit – of course, and a whole host of other people who indirectly has something to do with the Frindly Fisherman and Tom the Trucker.
Now, let’s take away that road, ‘cause this society believes only in profits. What happens then? Well, Asphalt Inc. would only be too happy to build a road – for a modest price, of course. Say, $10.000.000 (roads don’t come cheap, you know). So the Friendly Fisherman has to ask all his mates if they’re interested in having a road build. Trouble is, the ten local fishermen makes only $1.000.000 between them. So financing a road would take ten years. And in all that time, all their money goes into the road. They could, of course, apply for a loan. But fishing is a rather risky business, so the bank charges a high interest rate. It too is also looking for profit, of course. Even a 5% interest rate would be half the fishermen’s total income. And that’s probably a bit low, considering the riskiness of such a loan. So, all in all, no road for the fishermen.

So, in the end, our Frindly Fisherman is out of a job. As is Tom the Trucker. And Mike the Mechanic. And Truckers Inc. who can’t sell their trucks as there’re no roads for the trucks to drive on. And Processors Inc. who can no longer get any fish to process. And Fish-Mart who's got nothing to sell. And all the other people who indirectly had something to do with the Friendly Fisherman.

Ain’t it sad...

See, that’s why pure capitalism doesn’t work. Society, as a whole, has to shoulder some burdens in order to keep the wheels greased and the money flowing. Building that road to nowhere might be a loss to society, in a purely monetary sense. But it allows a lot of people to make a living and, as such, ends up being a boon to society as a whole. Perhaps not to you personally, but to society... And don’t forget that while your money paid for that road, all those people who're making a living from that road is paying for the road you use to make a living...
In the end, society actually benefits from building that road, even if the profit from our Frindly Fisherman is not enough to cover the cost.

Now, you might argue that the Friendly Fisherman could simply fish from a harbour in a big city with all these facilities in place. Sure he could, and so could all the other fishermen. And pretty soon all the fish in the seas surrounding that city are gone. Then the Friendly Fisherman has to sail back to his old fishing grounds losing profit because of the increased fuel consumption and because half the fish are dead before he can get them back to the city. So no, that won’t work either...

As a final though: have you ever heard of Prisoner’s Dilemma? It’s a real classic. In case you can’t be bothered to Google it, here’s the main idea behind it:

Two people might not cooperate, even when it’s beneficial for the to do so. Really, it’s that simple.

The definition of the original problem is this:

Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated the prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies for the prosecution against the other (defects) and the other remains silent (cooperates), the defector goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?

What’s that got to do with anything, you might ask. Well, this: the players will always betray each other. Why? Because a player cannot assume that the other player remains silent. In which case it’s better for that player to spill the beans. If he don’t, he get ten years. If he does, he only get five. He should have kept his mouth shut, but since he's only concerned with himself, talking is a better option.

This has implications for a whole lot of stuff. For example: a very interesting case study I was given at uni involved a company that had used a whole heap of money to upgrade their computer systems to include new mail and scheduling clients. However, after a while the management realized that no-one was using this system. Naturally, they got pretty upset and wanted to know why. What they found was that no-one bothered to use the system since it had no benefit for them personally. Why should Employee A waste his time entering his schedule into the system if Employee B, C, and D did not? And since Employee A could not be certain that they would, he didn’t want to do it before he was certain that they did. But all of them were waiting for each other so no-one ever entered any schedules into the system – ever.
See, the rational thing to do would be to enter your own schedule into the system but, due to the fear of being “betrayed” by others, you do the irrational thing – namely keep noting your meetings in your own notebook where it will benefit no-one but yourself.

Going back to the Friendly Fisherman, we thus see that while the rational thing to do would be to cooperate in the interest of getting a road build, the reality would be that each of the fishermen would be waiting for the other nine to build the road – hoping to get a free ride for their money. So, even if they could somehow raise the money they need to build the road (in itself a highly unlikely scenario) they wouldn’t actually do it as their perceived personal gain would be greater by not doing it.

Yeah, we humans are strangely irrational beasts...

[JJ Place]

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

Tax money isn't someone's rightful thing.

Tell us, why is that, Jello?

Because the social contract says that it isn't.
If you wish to argue that one ought to have the right to not pay taxes, then that's a separate argument. Appealing to rights in making your argument would be circular and therefore pointless, so I'd advise you against it.

Do you honestly think any of this is true, or are you joking with every single point? We've proven the Social Contract is a lie, and the massive problems with the Social Contract, and the reasoning why the Social Contract is never legitimate; and you still stick with it as to never to try to see that your wrong on the subject. If there's one more circular argument on the planet greater and abused more than than the Creationist's Argument about the Bible and God:

/snip picture

or this argument:

/snip picture

it's your argument about the Social Contract. Let me question you, if you believe the Social Contract to be a Divine un-written, Holiest Document ever written, let me ask you, where does it originate from?

I don't believe it's divine and holy, and certainly not unwritten. Most constitutions are written. The United States Constitution, for instance, originated as the result of the Constitutional Congress writing it and then elected representatives of the States ratifying it.

The Constitution sets up the government; with the Constitution comes with the Bill of Rights, which declares that there are Inalienable rights that the government cannot cross, destroying the idea of a Social Contract. In addition, With the government, tell us, why is the government the 'legitimate' ruler of a nation, and, if an organization writes what it claims to be the 'Social Contract' of it's area, why and how is it legitimate for society for follow said document?

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

I could deem all of Jello Biafra's funds "tax money" to myself... then he doesn't have a right to it?

If you are the one who enforces the social contract...yes.

Now all we have to do is re-write the 'Social Contract' to state that Jello is now to have all his family killed, his house torched in front of him, he shall be tortured almost to death, and shall remain the sex slave of whomever we choose for all of eternity , all while be forced to be as miserable as possible all the time.

The notion of a contract indicates consent. Of course, most social contracts do not require unanimity, so you could probably get that through without my consent.
Of course, it's doubtful that most people would agree to this, since they could easily be next.

No, you have no consent in the Social Contract; the consent is given by you existing in society. So you've agreed to have all your family killed, your house torched in front of yourself, you shall be tortured almost to death, and shall remain the sex slave of whomever we choose for all of eternity , all while you are being forced to be as miserable as possible all the time. And we have all 'democratically' voted to do all of these things to you, so it's all completely legitimate, correct?

It would be legitimate if such a provision is included within the social contract. However, it is unlikely that people, when ratifying the contract, would consent to such a provision.

The Constitutional Congress approved the provision to keep slavery legal in the United states, you think that the Constitutional Congress is the rightful writing organization of the 'Social Contract'; thus, my above provision, as it is written into a Social Contract, and in could very well be ratified very easily in certain situations, that makes it 'legitimate' no?

Jello, that doesn't make sense. "Tax money" isn't some magical object that you're paid so you can send it to the government. "Tax money" is 50% of YOUR PROPERTY that the government holds a gun up to your head for.

No, it's the government's property that it collects via legal channels.

Ha!; no, it's not the Mafia's, not by a long-shot.

True. The government is not the mafia.

Noting that, our friend Jello here is an avid supporter of mob rule, even if, say, it involves destroying the environment, I can't see why he'd try to argue that the government is in fact different from the Mafia; perplexing arguments.

Because the Mafia violates people's rights. The government cannot do so, unless the government (or the social contract) says that it did.

The government does the exact same things in the exact same manner as the Mafia, the government also violates people's rights, they do the exact same things. The difference is nothing, they both declare themselves to be fine organizations; if you accept that the government can legitimate rule an area and input a 'Social Contract' into place, you have to say the exact same things about the Mafia.

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

Because it's part of being a citizen. You also have the right to work toward changes that would bring the country into line with your vision of how it should work. Are you doing that, or are you just coming here and playing the Internet "You're Not The Boss Of Me" Libertarian Tough Guy?

What?

Why does my being a citizen because I was born in the United States mean that the government has the right to steal my lunch money, and, if I don't pay, shove me in a locker for the rest of my life?

because they give you services, services that they have to pay with tax money. You can, of course, decide not to pay but that means 1 of three things. 1) stop using the services they provide, 2)change the system or 3)Don't pay and accept the consequences

Argument fail on the grounds of a lack of a mutually agreed to transaction.

No, it really doesn't. By living in the society you are agreeing to it.

There is no other choice though.

Move to a deserted island somewhere where there are no other people.

Let me sum up and correct everything in this: You don't give consent by living in society; you where born in society. Neither can you justify any point by saying : "Move to a Desert Island" because I am a Libertarian, and

I must point out that "if you don't like it, then get the fuck out" has never seriously been a good argument.

The only difference between Hyde and myself in this scenario is that I am a Libertarian.

True, it is a bad argument. Kind of like when one complains about one's employer, it's a bad argument to say "you should find another job."

I must have precognition, because I knew I would have to answer this question: Different entirely; while the employer perhaps 'should' not use this as an argument; they can use this argument, as the decision to be employed is a consensual decision; the decision to be governed is not a consensual argument between people and leaders; thus that in and of itself is a reasoning against the argument that "If you don't like the country, you should just leave", while it is a legitimate argument to saying that if you do not like your employment; the fact that business is legitimate and government is not is just the cherry on the top of the cake.

Just the opposite - government is legitimate (at least, it can be), but business is not.

This is more the logic of a person from the Dark Ages, but go ahead; why is the government legitimate and business not?

[Hydesland]

All debates typically involved 99% semantic arguments, and 1% actual relevant argument.

The problem in this case is that the relevant argument IS semantics, the proposition in the OP is a semantic one, this thread is pointless.

Typically any statement you make is a semantic one. Any true or false statement you assert is based on the words you used.

Any statement you make is a semantic one, but it doesn't have to force you into semantics. A better question would be "is it worth taxing people", "is it justified?", "does it do more harm than good?"... all these allow you to discuss things other than pure semantics, although obviously semantics will still get involved.

[Dyakovo]

There is no option to not use the services or not pay for them. Get over it. It's coercive and it's theft.

Don't want to use the services? Don't live in that country, otherwise you're eating the food without intending to pay.

the GTFO argument fails.

It's your argument. You're being forced to use the military, the police, etc. Against your will. And then they make you pay.

Turns out, you're NOT actually being forced. You can opt out. Buh-bye now.

You want socialism so much, get the fuck out.

LOL False Dichotomy.

[Jello Biafra]

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

Tax money isn't someone's rightful thing.

Tell us, why is that, Jello?

Because the social contract says that it isn't.
If you wish to argue that one ought to have the right to not pay taxes, then that's a separate argument. Appealing to rights in making your argument would be circular and therefore pointless, so I'd advise you against it.

Do you honestly think any of this is true, or are you joking with every single point? We've proven the Social Contract is a lie, and the massive problems with the Social Contract, and the reasoning why the Social Contract is never legitimate; and you still stick with it as to never to try to see that your wrong on the subject. If there's one more circular argument on the planet greater and abused more than than the Creationist's Argument about the Bible and God:

/snip picture

or this argument:

/snip picture

it's your argument about the Social Contract. Let me question you, if you believe the Social Contract to be a Divine un-written, Holiest Document ever written, let me ask you, where does it originate from?

I don't believe it's divine and holy, and certainly not unwritten. Most constitutions are written. The United States Constitution, for instance, originated as the result of the Constitutional Congress writing it and then elected representatives of the States ratifying it.

The Constitution sets up the government; with the Constitution comes with the Bill of Rights, which declares that there are Inalienable rights that the government cannot cross, destroying the idea of a Social Contract.

While it is true that the Bill of Rights declares that the rights within it are inalienable, it is not this erroneous declaration that ensures we have rights, but rather the fact that they are included within the Bill of Rights (and that they are enforced, of course).

In addition, With the government, tell us, why is the government the 'legitimate' ruler of a nation, and, if an organization writes what it claims to be the 'Social Contract' of it's area, why and how is it legitimate for society for follow said document?

The document becomes legitimate when it is (democratically) ratified.

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

I could deem all of Jello Biafra's funds "tax money" to myself... then he doesn't have a right to it?

If you are the one who enforces the social contract...yes.

Now all we have to do is re-write the 'Social Contract' to state that Jello is now to have all his family killed, his house torched in front of him, he shall be tortured almost to death, and shall remain the sex slave of whomever we choose for all of eternity , all while be forced to be as miserable as possible all the time.

The notion of a contract indicates consent. Of course, most social contracts do not require unanimity, so you could probably get that through without my consent.
Of course, it's doubtful that most people would agree to this, since they could easily be next.

No, you have no consent in the Social Contract; the consent is given by you existing in society. So you've agreed to have all your family killed, your house torched in front of yourself, you shall be tortured almost to death, and shall remain the sex slave of whomever we choose for all of eternity , all while you are being forced to be as miserable as possible all the time. And we have all 'democratically' voted to do all of these things to you, so it's all completely legitimate, correct?

It would be legitimate if such a provision is included within the social contract. However, it is unlikely that people, when ratifying the contract, would consent to such a provision.

The Constitutional Congress approved the provision to keep slavery legal in the United states, you think that the Constitutional Congress is the rightful writing organization of the 'Social Contract'; thus, my above provision, as it is written into a Social Contract, and in could very well be ratified very easily in certain situations, that makes it 'legitimate' no?

Conceivably, yes. I'd imagine that there would be some other social contract that I could appeal to (such as the U.N.'s Declaration of Human Rights). Social contracts aren't (inherently) exclusive.

Jello, that doesn't make sense. "Tax money" isn't some magical object that you're paid so you can send it to the government. "Tax money" is 50% of YOUR PROPERTY that the government holds a gun up to your head for.

No, it's the government's property that it collects via legal channels.

Ha!; no, it's not the Mafia's, not by a long-shot.

True. The government is not the mafia.

Noting that, our friend Jello here is an avid supporter of mob rule, even if, say, it involves destroying the environment, I can't see why he'd try to argue that the government is in fact different from the Mafia; perplexing arguments.

Because the Mafia violates people's rights. The government cannot do so, unless the government (or the social contract) says that it did.

The government does the exact same things in the exact same manner as the Mafia, the government also violates people's rights, they do the exact same things. The difference is nothing, they both declare themselves to be fine organizations; if you accept that the government can legitimate rule an area and input a 'Social Contract' into place, you have to say the exact same things about the Mafia.

The Mafia's rule is contractually negotiated at some point?

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

Because it's part of being a citizen. You also have the right to work toward changes that would bring the country into line with your vision of how it should work. Are you doing that, or are you just coming here and playing the Internet "You're Not The Boss Of Me" Libertarian Tough Guy?

What?

Why does my being a citizen because I was born in the United States mean that the government has the right to steal my lunch money, and, if I don't pay, shove me in a locker for the rest of my life?

because they give you services, services that they have to pay with tax money. You can, of course, decide not to pay but that means 1 of three things. 1) stop using the services they provide, 2)change the system or 3)Don't pay and accept the consequences

Argument fail on the grounds of a lack of a mutually agreed to transaction.

No, it really doesn't. By living in the society you are agreeing to it.

There is no other choice though.

Move to a deserted island somewhere where there are no other people.

Let me sum up and correct everything in this: You don't give consent by living in society; you where born in society. Neither can you justify any point by saying : "Move to a Desert Island" because I am a Libertarian, and

I must point out that "if you don't like it, then get the fuck out" has never seriously been a good argument.

The only difference between Hyde and myself in this scenario is that I am a Libertarian.

True, it is a bad argument. Kind of like when one complains about one's employer, it's a bad argument to say "you should find another job."

I must have precognition, because I knew I would have to answer this question: Different entirely; while the employer perhaps 'should' not use this as an argument; they can use this argument, as the decision to be employed is a consensual decision; the decision to be governed is not a consensual argument between people and leaders; thus that in and of itself is a reasoning against the argument that "If you don't like the country, you should just leave", while it is a legitimate argument to saying that if you do not like your employment; the fact that business is legitimate and government is not is just the cherry on the top of the cake.

Just the opposite - government is legitimate (at least, it can be), but business is not.

This is more the logic of a person from the Dark Ages, but go ahead; why is the government legitimate and business not?

Because logical arguments can be made for the creation of governments at every step along the way.

Edit: Actually, this isn't important. Whoever benefits from business could put it in the social contract and swindle people into ratifying it, and then business would be legitimate even if they can't logically be defended.

[Dododecapod]

The Constitution sets up the government; with the Constitution comes with the Bill of Rights, which declares that there are Inalienable rights that the government cannot cross, destroying the idea of a Social Contract.

This is total nonsense. Limitations on a contract do not "destroy" a contract in any way.

[Bendira]

So, I’m a troll, eh? That’s a first...

Ok then, let me ask you a question: how do you define a person’s worth?

From your posts it seems that you define it solely by profit. Well, in that case most of the professors whose lectures I attended at uni better start packing and moving into a city. ‘Cause while they might be very smart persons, certainly a lot smarter and far more knowledgeable than the average person, there isn’t a whole lot of profit to be gotten from their research. So I guess they don’t get a road. Or water. Or electricity. Or sanitation. Or anything else for that matter, despite having spent a lifetime furthering humanity’s understanding of theoretical mathematics and computing. But no. No profit, no worth...
In fact, a lot of science and research would be lost as there’s no benefit, when defined as being profit, associated with it.

Much scientific research is actually worthless to the furthering of humankind. These intellectuals who get their jolly's off on discovering new types of bacteria are indeed not contributing anything to society. It is the equivalent of me getting payed by the government to blog about music. I am not creating anything. The reason why the government historically has bought off intellectuals is because it will reduce the chance that they will criticize the government. Obviously if I am running my publically funded music blog, and the government forms a band and asks me to review it, obviously I am going to say the band is amazing. Because I know damn well that im not doing anything worthwhile that the private sector would find valuable, so the only way for me to remain employed doing my hobby is to polish the governments poll. Now this still dosn't mean advancements in science wouldn't occur in an anarchist society. Eccentric millionaires donate to science all the time, and many discoveries are made during corporate research.

In any case, back to our friend: the Friendly Fisherman. Let’s say he can make $100.000 per year (just to throw a number out there) provided that he can get his catch transported to a processing plant. Well, society has kindly provided him with a road and Tom the Trucker is only too happy to transports the fish from the harbour to the processing plant – for a modest payment, of course. So far, so good. Both our Friendly Fisherman and Tom the Trucker makes a decent living. As does Mike the Mechanic, who makes sure that both boat and truck is kept in working condition, Truckers Inc. who sold the truck, Asphalt Inc. who maintains the road, Processors Inc. who processes the fish, Fish-Mart who sells the fish, at a profit – of course, and a whole host of other people who indirectly has something to do with the Frindly Fisherman and Tom the Trucker.

Ok, I follow so far.

Now, let’s take away that road, ‘cause this society believes only in profits. What happens then? Well, Asphalt Inc. would only be too happy to build a road – for a modest price, of course. Say, $10.000.000 (roads don’t come cheap, you know). So the Friendly Fisherman has to ask all his mates if they’re interested in having a road build. Trouble is, the ten local fishermen makes only $1.000.000 between them. So financing a road would take ten years. And in all that time, all their money goes into the road. They could, of course, apply for a loan. But fishing is a rather risky business, so the bank charges a high interest rate. It too is also looking for profit, of course. Even a 5% interest rate would be half the fishermen’s total income. And that’s probably a bit low, considering the riskiness of such a loan. So, all in all, no road for the fishermen.

Ok, I agree so far.

So, in the end, our Frindly Fisherman is out of a job. As is Tom the Trucker. And Mike the Mechanic. And Truckers Inc. who can’t sell their trucks as there’re no roads for the trucks to drive on. And Processors Inc. who can no longer get any fish to process. And Fish-Mart who's got nothing to sell. And all the other people who indirectly had something to do with the Friendly Fisherman.

Ok, so basically you made the exact same argument that was made earlier, only you used about 40x the words. The Friendly Fisherman shouldn't go fish out in the middle of no where and expect society to pick up the tab. The fact that the price of this particular fish is low, so low in fact that it isn't worth a business' time to build a road, shows that this fish does not have a lot of scarcity. This could be because, perhaps, very few people like the taste of this fish, and there is no demand. Or perhaps that this fish is fished in another location that provides for much easier and less expensive transport. Again, a lack of basic knowledge about economics.

Ain’t it sad...

No

See, that’s why pure capitalism doesn’t work. Society, as a whole, has to shoulder some burdens in order to keep the wheels greased and the money flowing. Building that road to nowhere might be a loss to society, in a purely monetary sense. But it allows a lot of people to make a living and, as such, ends up being a boon to society as a whole. Perhaps not to you personally, but to society... And don’t forget that while your money paid for that road, all those people who're making a living from that road is paying for the road you use to make a living...

In the end, society actually benefits from building that road, even if the profit from our Frindly Fisherman is not enough to cover the cost.

No where in this does society benefit from building the road. Who benefits from building this road, are the handful of individuals that would use this road. This handful of individuals do not represent the whole of society. The rest of society would actually be hurt by the building of this road.

Now, you might argue that the Friendly Fisherman could simply fish from a harbour in a big city with all these facilities in place. Sure he could, and so could all the other fishermen. And pretty soon all the fish in the seas surrounding that city are gone. Then the Friendly Fisherman has to sail back to his old fishing grounds losing profit because of the increased fuel consumption and because half the fish are dead before he can get them back to the city. So no, that won’t work either...

Uh, wtf are you talking about? If all the fish from the hypothetical harbour are fished, and there still remains the same demand for the fish, the scarcity of the fish would increase. Presumably, depending on the demand and the scarcity of the fish, this would allow for the fisherman to actually make money at his old fishing spot. Because the price of the infrustructure would be built into the cost of the fish. And if the demand for the fish dosn't fall, it would become beneficial for society to build this road and provide power. And the fact that a large portion of the fish die on transport (which sort of shows a lack of knowledge about fishing I think?) would just increase the scarcity of the fish. Again, this just shows your utter lack of knowledge about capitalism and basic economics.

As a final though: have you ever heard of Prisoner’s Dilemma? It’s a real classic. In case you can’t be bothered to Google it, here’s the main idea behind it:

Two people might not cooperate, even when it’s beneficial for the to do so. Really, it’s that simple.

The definition of the original problem is this:

Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated the prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies for the prosecution against the other (defects) and the other remains silent (cooperates), the defector goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?

What’s that got to do with anything, you might ask. Well, this: the players will always betray each other. Why? Because a player cannot assume that the other player remains silent. In which case it’s better for that player to spill the beans. If he don’t, he get ten years. If he does, he only get five. He should have kept his mouth shut, but since he's only concerned with himself, talking is a better option.

Still wondering what this has to do with anything tbh.

This has implications for a whole lot of stuff. For example: a very interesting case study I was given at uni involved a company that had used a whole heap of money to upgrade their computer systems to include new mail and scheduling clients. However, after a while the management realized that no-one was using this system. Naturally, they got pretty upset and wanted to know why. What they found was that no-one bothered to use the system since it had no benefit for them personally. Why should Employee A waste his time entering his schedule into the system if Employee B, C, and D did not? And since Employee A could not be certain that they would, he didn’t want to do it before he was certain that they did. But all of them were waiting for each other so no-one ever entered any schedules into the system – ever.

See, the rational thing to do would be to enter your own schedule into the system but, due to the fear of being “betrayed” by others, you do the irrational thing – namely keep noting your meetings in your own notebook where it will benefit no-one but yourself.

How is this irrational? The irrationality is the management trying to force workers into entering a system that the employee's clearly would not benefit from using. If the employee's wanted to use the system, they would have done so. The whole betrayal thing is just part of competition in the workplace, where employee's are willing to jump through hoops to please their managers. I fail to see the relevance in this.

Going back to the Friendly Fisherman, we thus see that while the rational thing to do would be to cooperate in the interest of getting a road build, the reality would be that each of the fishermen would be waiting for the other nine to build the road – hoping to get a free ride for their money. So, even if they could somehow raise the money they need to build the road (in itself a highly unlikely scenario) they wouldn’t actually do it as their perceived personal gain would be greater by not doing it.

Since you are admitting that the threat of a free rider would stir competition, I suppose you aren't one of these people who believe there would be stagnate monopolies in a free market. Essentially you are arguing that there would be TOO MUCH competition in the market. This in relation to the employee example has several differences. In the fishing scenario, the fisherman actually have something to gain by raising the money for the road, known as profit. In the employee example, the employee's did not value the system they were being asked to join. There was no incentive for the employee's to join, other than perhaps peer pressure from their co-workers or pressure from the management, in which case each employee presumably deemed it unnecessary to enter the system. Two completely different scenario's with barely any parallels whatsoever.

Yeah, we humans are strangely irrational beasts...

False. It is rational to fulfill ones self interest, and since every action we take as human's is an attempt at fulfilling self interest, we are completely rational.

[Dyakovo]

So, in the end, our Frindly Fisherman is out of a job. As is Tom the Trucker. And Mike the Mechanic. And Truckers Inc. who can’t sell their trucks as there’re no roads for the trucks to drive on. And Processors Inc. who can no longer get any fish to process. And Fish-Mart who's got nothing to sell. And all the other people who indirectly had something to do with the Friendly Fisherman.

Ok, so basically you made the exact same argument that was made earlier, only you used about 40x the words. The Friendly Fisherman shouldn't go fish out in the middle of no where and expect society to pick up the tab. The fact that the price of this particular fish is low, so low in fact that it isn't worth a business' time to build a road, shows that this fish does not have a lot of scarcity. This could be because, perhaps, very few people like the taste of this fish, and there is no demand. Or perhaps that this fish is fished in another location that provides for much easier and less expensive transport. Again, a lack of basic knowledge about economics.

And right there is the proof that anarcho-capitalists want to enjoy the benefits of society without paying the costs.

Fisherman have no choice but to do the fishing where the fish are.

[Bendira]

So, in the end, our Frindly Fisherman is out of a job. As is Tom the Trucker. And Mike the Mechanic. And Truckers Inc. who can’t sell their trucks as there’re no roads for the trucks to drive on. And Processors Inc. who can no longer get any fish to process. And Fish-Mart who's got nothing to sell. And all the other people who indirectly had something to do with the Friendly Fisherman.

Ok, so basically you made the exact same argument that was made earlier, only you used about 40x the words. The Friendly Fisherman shouldn't go fish out in the middle of no where and expect society to pick up the tab. The fact that the price of this particular fish is low, so low in fact that it isn't worth a business' time to build a road, shows that this fish does not have a lot of scarcity. This could be because, perhaps, very few people like the taste of this fish, and there is no demand. Or perhaps that this fish is fished in another location that provides for much easier and less expensive transport. Again, a lack of basic knowledge about economics.

And right there is the proof that anarcho-capitalists want to enjoy the benefits of society without paying the costs.

Fisherman have no choice but to do the fishing where the fish are.

Oh. My. God. Again, no grasp of economics. If the only place to fish is out in the middle of no where, and there is a demand for this type of fish, the fish would have increased scarcity, raising the price for the fish, raising the profits for the fish, thus making it profitable for business' to extend services to the fisherman. My lord, can you guys think before you post?

[Dyakovo]

So, in the end, our Frindly Fisherman is out of a job. As is Tom the Trucker. And Mike the Mechanic. And Truckers Inc. who can’t sell their trucks as there’re no roads for the trucks to drive on. And Processors Inc. who can no longer get any fish to process. And Fish-Mart who's got nothing to sell. And all the other people who indirectly had something to do with the Friendly Fisherman.

Ok, so basically you made the exact same argument that was made earlier, only you used about 40x the words. The Friendly Fisherman shouldn't go fish out in the middle of no where and expect society to pick up the tab. The fact that the price of this particular fish is low, so low in fact that it isn't worth a business' time to build a road, shows that this fish does not have a lot of scarcity. This could be because, perhaps, very few people like the taste of this fish, and there is no demand. Or perhaps that this fish is fished in another location that provides for much easier and less expensive transport. Again, a lack of basic knowledge about economics.

And right there is the proof that anarcho-capitalists want to enjoy the benefits of society without paying the costs.

Fisherman have no choice but to do the fishing where the fish are.

Oh. My. God. Again, no grasp of economics. If the only place to fish is out in the middle of no where, and there is a demand for this type of fish, the fish would have increased scarcity, raising the price for the fish, raising the profits for the fish, thus making it profitable for business' to extend services to the fisherman. My lord, can you guys think before you post?

LOL. There's more to economics than supply and demand.

[Bendira]

So, in the end, our Frindly Fisherman is out of a job. As is Tom the Trucker. And Mike the Mechanic. And Truckers Inc. who can’t sell their trucks as there’re no roads for the trucks to drive on. And Processors Inc. who can no longer get any fish to process. And Fish-Mart who's got nothing to sell. And all the other people who indirectly had something to do with the Friendly Fisherman.

Ok, so basically you made the exact same argument that was made earlier, only you used about 40x the words. The Friendly Fisherman shouldn't go fish out in the middle of no where and expect society to pick up the tab. The fact that the price of this particular fish is low, so low in fact that it isn't worth a business' time to build a road, shows that this fish does not have a lot of scarcity. This could be because, perhaps, very few people like the taste of this fish, and there is no demand. Or perhaps that this fish is fished in another location that provides for much easier and less expensive transport. Again, a lack of basic knowledge about economics.

And right there is the proof that anarcho-capitalists want to enjoy the benefits of society without paying the costs.

Fisherman have no choice but to do the fishing where the fish are.

Oh. My. God. Again, no grasp of economics. If the only place to fish is out in the middle of no where, and there is a demand for this type of fish, the fish would have increased scarcity, raising the price for the fish, raising the profits for the fish, thus making it profitable for business' to extend services to the fisherman. My lord, can you guys think before you post?

LOL. There's more to economics than supply and demand.

Ok, please explain to me why what I just said is wrong.

[Dododecapod]

So, in the end, our Frindly Fisherman is out of a job. As is Tom the Trucker. And Mike the Mechanic. And Truckers Inc. who can’t sell their trucks as there’re no roads for the trucks to drive on. And Processors Inc. who can no longer get any fish to process. And Fish-Mart who's got nothing to sell. And all the other people who indirectly had something to do with the Friendly Fisherman.

Ok, so basically you made the exact same argument that was made earlier, only you used about 40x the words. The Friendly Fisherman shouldn't go fish out in the middle of no where and expect society to pick up the tab. The fact that the price of this particular fish is low, so low in fact that it isn't worth a business' time to build a road, shows that this fish does not have a lot of scarcity. This could be because, perhaps, very few people like the taste of this fish, and there is no demand. Or perhaps that this fish is fished in another location that provides for much easier and less expensive transport. Again, a lack of basic knowledge about economics.

And right there is the proof that anarcho-capitalists want to enjoy the benefits of society without paying the costs.

Fisherman have no choice but to do the fishing where the fish are.

Oh. My. God. Again, no grasp of economics. If the only place to fish is out in the middle of no where, and there is a demand for this type of fish, the fish would have increased scarcity, raising the price for the fish, raising the profits for the fish, thus making it profitable for business' to extend services to the fisherman. My lord, can you guys think before you post?

LOL. There's more to economics than supply and demand.

Ok, please explain to me why what I just said is wrong.

Demand is not an either/or proposition. Fish may be in demand at price X, but not in demand at price Y. Cost past a certain point eliminates demand; your oh-so-wonderful market means that competition will undercut the fish, and unless there's a really good reason to buy it, people won't. Now, you might make it as a GOURMET food, but that will require marketing - yet another expense. The more expenses you put on things (and you've already put ALL of the infrastructure costs on the fisherman) the less likely anything will ever get off the ground.

[Dyakovo]

So, in the end, our Frindly Fisherman is out of a job. As is Tom the Trucker. And Mike the Mechanic. And Truckers Inc. who can’t sell their trucks as there’re no roads for the trucks to drive on. And Processors Inc. who can no longer get any fish to process. And Fish-Mart who's got nothing to sell. And all the other people who indirectly had something to do with the Friendly Fisherman.

Ok, so basically you made the exact same argument that was made earlier, only you used about 40x the words. The Friendly Fisherman shouldn't go fish out in the middle of no where and expect society to pick up the tab. The fact that the price of this particular fish is low, so low in fact that it isn't worth a business' time to build a road, shows that this fish does not have a lot of scarcity. This could be because, perhaps, very few people like the taste of this fish, and there is no demand. Or perhaps that this fish is fished in another location that provides for much easier and less expensive transport. Again, a lack of basic knowledge about economics.

And right there is the proof that anarcho-capitalists want to enjoy the benefits of society without paying the costs.

Fisherman have no choice but to do the fishing where the fish are.

Oh. My. God. Again, no grasp of economics. If the only place to fish is out in the middle of no where, and there is a demand for this type of fish, the fish would have increased scarcity, raising the price for the fish, raising the profits for the fish, thus making it profitable for business' to extend services to the fisherman. My lord, can you guys think before you post?

LOL. There's more to economics than supply and demand.

Ok, please explain to me why what I just said is wrong.

Simply put: There is more to economics than supply and demand.
For more detail, see here, here, here, here, and here.
Edit: and here.

[JJ Place]

The Constitution sets up the government; with the Constitution comes with the Bill of Rights, which declares that there are Inalienable rights that the government cannot cross, destroying the idea of a Social Contract.

This is total nonsense. Limitations on a contract do not "destroy" a contract in any way.

The Bill of Rights isn't a 'limitation' of the 'contract'; it's a rejection of the contract entirely, and the establishment of the United States's written rejection of any 'Social Contract'.

[Dyakovo]

The Constitution sets up the government; with the Constitution comes with the Bill of Rights, which declares that there are Inalienable rights that the government cannot cross, destroying the idea of a Social Contract.

This is total nonsense. Limitations on a contract do not "destroy" a contract in any way.

The Bill of Rights isn't a 'limitation' of the 'contract'; it's a rejection of the contract entirely, and the establishment of the United States's written rejection of any 'Social Contract'.

How so?

[Dododecapod]

The Constitution sets up the government; with the Constitution comes with the Bill of Rights, which declares that there are Inalienable rights that the government cannot cross, destroying the idea of a Social Contract.

This is total nonsense. Limitations on a contract do not "destroy" a contract in any way.

The Bill of Rights isn't a 'limitation' of the 'contract'; it's a rejection of the contract entirely, and the establishment of the United States's written rejection of any 'Social Contract'.

Bollocks. If anything it's a confirmation of the social contract - by creating specific limitations and restrictions, and certain predetermined permissions, upon the actions of the perons involved, it helps to define the social contract between populace and government.

[Avenio]

Much scientific research is actually worthless to the furthering of humankind. These intellectuals who get their jolly's off on discovering new types of bacteria are indeed not contributing anything to society. It is the equivalent of me getting payed by the government to blog about music. I am not creating anything.

Penicillin. Lasers. DNA. Photovoltaic cells. Hydroponics. All were discovered through 'blue sky' research, which is research that had no 'purpose' or 'use' at the time of the research, but now are so ingrained in modern society that we would not be at the point we are today without them. Any scientific knowledge gained furthers humanity, because, among many other philosophical reasons that seem to elude you, it is shallow-minded and arrogant to presume to know what is 'useful' and what is not.

[Xomic]

Still wondering what this has to do with anything tbh.

It has to do with the fact that, despite your many postings, you seemingly don't really have a concrete (or, indeed, any) understanding of human nature.

It's like the time, a few pages ago, when you 'solved' the free rider problem-- by either misunderstanding what the problem is, or human nature.

Just for an example, the building and maintenance of public roads. You are assuming that the people who would pay for the roads would be the users of the roads directly. However this is completely innacurate, because in a free market scenario, you have to look at where the incentive lies. If I am a business owner, and I start a shop in the middle of a cornfield, there obviously would be no way for people to get to my shop, unless a road was constructed. I would pay a private company to make a road leading from another "main road" to my shop. The cost of maintaining this road would most likely be built into the cost of the goods I provide. So obviously in this example, there is no free rider problem. Because anybody technically is free to use the road. Now lets say that another business opens up next to the road. You could say that this business could "free ride" on the road being there. But now that the road is the only form of access to their shop as well, obviously the maintenance of this road is of vital importance to them as well. Now lets look at a road where 50 shops are located. Obviously in this scenario, there would be shops that would most likely be free riders. But this free riding is actually not a negative thing, because the asymmetry in the maintenance of the road would create competition between the business. Whenever there is asymmetry in the market, obviously competition will arise, because that is the very definition of competition.

The definition of the free rider problem can best be summed up as this; "In economics, collective bargaining, psychology, and political science, "free riders" are those who consume more than their fair share of a public resource, or shoulder less than a fair share of the costs of its production." It doesn't matter that the road is important to both businesses- If we both pay, the cost is reduced, but if only you pay to maintain the road, we still both benefit; if neither us pay, we both die (in terms of business.)

It's very difficult for you to say, you guys know nothing of economics, when your own level of knowledge is apparently very poor.

[Bendira]

So, in the end, our Frindly Fisherman is out of a job. As is Tom the Trucker. And Mike the Mechanic. And Truckers Inc. who can’t sell their trucks as there’re no roads for the trucks to drive on. And Processors Inc. who can no longer get any fish to process. And Fish-Mart who's got nothing to sell. And all the other people who indirectly had something to do with the Friendly Fisherman.

Ok, so basically you made the exact same argument that was made earlier, only you used about 40x the words. The Friendly Fisherman shouldn't go fish out in the middle of no where and expect society to pick up the tab. The fact that the price of this particular fish is low, so low in fact that it isn't worth a business' time to build a road, shows that this fish does not have a lot of scarcity. This could be because, perhaps, very few people like the taste of this fish, and there is no demand. Or perhaps that this fish is fished in another location that provides for much easier and less expensive transport. Again, a lack of basic knowledge about economics.

And right there is the proof that anarcho-capitalists want to enjoy the benefits of society without paying the costs.

Fisherman have no choice but to do the fishing where the fish are.

Oh. My. God. Again, no grasp of economics. If the only place to fish is out in the middle of no where, and there is a demand for this type of fish, the fish would have increased scarcity, raising the price for the fish, raising the profits for the fish, thus making it profitable for business' to extend services to the fisherman. My lord, can you guys think before you post?

LOL. There's more to economics than supply and demand.

Ok, please explain to me why what I just said is wrong.

Demand is not an either/or proposition. Fish may be in demand at price X, but not in demand at price Y. Cost past a certain point eliminates demand; your oh-so-wonderful market means that competition will undercut the fish, and unless there's a really good reason to buy it, people won't. Now, you might make it as a GOURMET food, but that will require marketing - yet another expense. The more expenses you put on things (and you've already put ALL of the infrastructure costs on the fisherman) the less likely anything will ever get off the ground.

So there is not enough demand for the fish to make it a profitable investment. The infrustructure isn't ALL on the fisherman. Perhaps there are more business' with him that could benefit from the use of the road, perhaps the markets that sell the fish are willing to put up some money, if not all of the money if the demand for fish is high enough. You must also understand too that the infrustructure costs in a free market would be far less than in our society, because our road and power systems are maintained by a single corrupt monopolistic corporation (the government). So the competition between the infrustructure companies would of course lower costs. Also you are assuming this guy couldn't just mount a solar panel or wind turbine on the top of his house, and pay dirt cheap for the competitively priced road to be paved to his fishing grounds.