[Rancid]

In that case, it is something I want, need, and have asked for.

Fair enough, but let's further this hypothetical. What would you think about those dirty capitalist pigs that are protesting for capitalism? Surely you wouldn't like them, but would you think they should not be allowed to protest?

I guess I'm just trying to figure if you would be authoritarian with your socialism. If yes, then you have my support!

[Pants-of-dog]

In my opinion, people protesting for capitalism are like people protesting for the right to rape children.

[SSDR]

No they shouldn't. Forcing someone to buy something that is not needed is slavery. It is slavery to under both the selling enterprise (company, manufacturer, etc.) and the person who is forcing someone to buy something.

There is two kinds of forced purchasing: Direct and Indirect.

Direct forced purchasing is when someone Forces someone to buy something. Examples of this is human trafficking, pointing a weapon at a potential purchaser, or forcing to terminate a worker or kick out someone who lives with the perpetrator if the victim doesn't purchase.

Indirect forced purchasing is when someone Manipulates someone to buy something. Examples of this is shaming the potential purchaser, teaching others that "Money buys love," mandatory holidays, and family (family institution) pressures (such as laughing or shaming at someone who doesn't buy gifts for relatives).

[SolarCross]

You did not understand my point.

Does the fact that some services are emergencies justify people paying for the whole system?

I would argue no in that case.

[Pants-of-dog]

I would argue no in that case.

Then the fact that cops sometimes deal with emergencies does not justify the fact that I am forced to pay for capitalism.

[SolarCross]

Then the fact that cops sometimes deal with emergencies does not justify the fact that I am forced to pay for capitalism.

Sure it may be at that. To elaborate I think it is arguable that you shouldn't be forced to pay cops to harass pot smokers for example even while it is probably justifiable to force you to pay them to track down serial killers etc.

[One Degree]

You are basically asking if a community should have rights over individuals. Yes, if you want civilization. However the question is disingenuous for a democracy. You were not forced to pay taxes. You chose to do so. We can change this if we decide to. We voluntarily give a community rights over us so we can live and work in harmony.
This seems to be something the ‘individual rights’ enthusiasts do not understand.

[XogGyux]

I am forced to pay taxes that then go to pay the cops, judges, and lawmakers that provide the infrastructure for capitalism.

So, I am already being forced to do so.

I don't see it this way. In a sense, you are buying into society. You might have not walked into a store and bought it but either you or your ancestors did when they immigrated or helped found the union. Either way, someone in your line probably bought into society and then the rest of the line just kept paying it's due. Although perhaps if you are afrian american descent this might not quite apply the same way, but essentially you can drop from society and move to the middle of an unpopulated area and live "outside" of society and not pay anything. I am sure the goverment will not chase after you.
You can move to the Everglades and live from eating alligators and pythons, you will be doing a great service to society Maybe we should even pay you for doing that!

[Rancid]

In my opinion, people protesting for capitalism are like people protesting for the right to rape children.

Interesting. You helped me understand something which has nothing to do with you or socialism or capitalism. Thus, i'll just keep it to myself.

Thanks!

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't see it this way. In a sense, you are buying into society. You might have not walked into a store and bought it but either you or your ancestors did when they immigrated or helped found the union.

I came to Canada as an immigrant because my country of birth was under a right wing dictatorship. I did not choose to emigrate.

My wife is indigenous and had capitalism literally enforced at gunpoint in her family history.

Either way, someone in your line probably bought into society and then the rest of the line just kept paying it's due. Although perhaps if you are afrian american descent this might not quite apply the same way, but essentially you can drop from society and move to the middle of an unpopulated area and live "outside" of society and not pay anything. I am sure the goverment will not chase after you.

Actually, my country did chase down indigenous people who went into the woods to escape. The US probably did as well.

[SolarCross]

You are basically asking if a community should have rights over individuals. Yes, if you want civilization. However the question is disingenuous for a democracy. You were not forced to pay taxes. You chose to do so. We can change this if we decide to. We voluntarily give a community rights over us so we can live and work in harmony.
This seems to be something the ‘individual rights’ enthusiasts do not understand.

Communities are made of individuals, so it will always be asking if some individuals should have rights over other individuals...

It is no obvious at all that liability to taxation is contingent on consent even in the case of a democracy. As evidence non-voting residents generally are also obliged to pay tax.

If it was ever explicitly presented that liability to taxation was contingent on being registered to vote then I put it to you that voter registrations would drop to 0%.

[One Degree]

Communities are made of individuals, so it will always be asking if some individuals should have rights over other individuals...

Absolutely, which is why communities exist to do this peacefully.

It is no obvious at all that liability to taxation is contingent on consent even in the case of a democracy. As evidence non-voting residents generally are also obliged to pay tax.

You are trying to place an individual’s right above the community’s right. This is the confusion created today by not understanding what rights really are. If the individual does not agree to this then they should leave the community if they can’t change it.

If it was ever explicitly presented that liability to taxation was contingent on being registered to vote then I put it to you that voter registrations would drop to 0%.

I don’t believe that is true, but it really doesn’t have anything to do with my point.

[ness31]

Whoever talked about ‘buying into society’ is spot on. It’s like we buy a way of life with our taxes. More and more though, our taxes are being used to pervert a way of life we once knew. Being an active citizen involved in civics, is like a full time job. So, not only do you pay tax, you also don’t get paid for time consuming work while everyone else is off being useless letting the place turn to poo

[Victoribus Spolia]

Okay, I'll try.. the examples you mention are relatively obvious things that you might well have sufficient understanding to do without coercion. However what if the circumstances demanded a purchase which is identified as needed by experts but must be performed by non-experts? For example one consequence of Magna Carta was that kings were extremely limited in legal means to raise funds for professional fighting men and this lead to the passing of numerous Archery Laws wherein as a substitute for gold for professionals regular folks were required to obtain and train with war bows so that they may be equiped and trained for times of war. The king here is the expert on matters of war and statecraft while the regular folks while being experts in many civilian matters generally know nothing much of strategic concerns and so wouldn't possess sufficient knowledge to make an informed choice in the matter and thus it was required to force them to purchase bows rather than persuade them to buy bows and let it slide if they chose not to.

I don't see how this would be justifiable either.The King was a private agent, so let him hire his own archers. If I have some sort of contractual obligation that I had previously agreed to in becoming the King's archer, that is an entirely different matter.

Your example is basically a more tolerable form of militia conscription. The U.S. did something like this shortly after the nation was formed when a law was passed ( I think under President Washington) which required every U.S. male to own a firearm.

Though I think this is the more tolerable of examples; I still do not think its ultimately justified. After all, I am being forced at gunpoint to own a gun. That's a form of burglary.

Does the fact that some services are emergencies justify people paying for the whole system?

I don't think taxation is justified (per your first comments on here) even for services, unless you specifically and voluntarily requested those services with the option of not benefiting from them and therefore the option to not have to pay for them.

Also, how does one "pay" for a whole system? I don't understand this idea of yours.

[ness31]

I don't think taxation is justified (per your first comments on here) even for services, unless you specifically and voluntarily requested those services with the option of not benefiting from them and therefore the option to not have to pay for them.

Even you need roads VS!

[MistyTiger]

Comcast is forcing customers to pay for some regional sports fee, even if they do not subscribe to cable. That is horrible.

I do not think anyone should be forced to buy anything they do not want.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Even you need roads VS!

I am assuming that you are being sarcastic, but in case you're not:

*sigh*

The "Muh Roads" remark, the splinter in every ancap's eye. lol.

Let me just say; roads can be voluntary. The most important road is the 1/2 mile one I am putting back into to my property, that was done privately and voluntarily.

[Rancid]

Is it possible to have an all volunteer buy in for services though? Wouldn't certain crucial services get starved?

Are we saying an invisible hand in the way taxes are collected would be better?

I have a lot of questions, because I'm really confused.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't think taxation is justified (per your first comments on here) even for services, unless you specifically and voluntarily requested those services with the option of not benefiting from them and therefore the option to not have to pay for them.

Also, how does one "pay" for a whole system? I don't understand this idea of yours.

Then capitalism, as it currently stands, is unjustified.

And I think it would be more correct to say that we do not pay for the whole system, but instead pay for the essential infrastructure that supports capitalism.

By this I mean that essential aspects of capitalism necessarily require certain supports which create costs, and we pay are forced to pay those costs.

For example, contract law. Contract law requires legislators to make it, judges to interpret it, and police or bailiffs to enforce it. These people, and the associated pages, janitors, lawyers, etc. all need to be paid, and they need buildings to work in, etc. And my taxes pay for all of this.

[XogGyux]

I am assuming that you are being sarcastic, but in case you're not:

*sigh*

The "Muh Roads" remark, the splinter in every ancap's eye. lol.

Let me just say; roads can be voluntary. The most important road is the 1/2 mile one I am putting back into to my property, that was done privately and voluntarily.

And yet you ignore how we arrived to this kind of system. This is how it was in the past, tiny communities of perhaps a handful of families on their own. But hey.... the easiest way to acquire more resources is to have a group of people come and steal (murdering if necessary) the resources of other, weaker people. That is why you have a police force and military to protect yourself against your neighbors (police) and against other countries. The other "burdens" of the system have also popped out through history for similar reasons. Public schools? It turns out that having a society based on dumb, ignorant people is usually a worse society than one that is not. The dumb and ignorant end up being oppressed by the more educated and astute people, at the same time they are usually left with no resources but to violently rebel (e.g. french revolution). The reason why the EPA and FDA and FCC, etc all exist is because in the past, at some point, the most powerful people took advantage of their power and made us sick with lead in the air we breathe, poison in the water we drink, etc.
To make such a statement is to ignore that not having a government means we pay another price, a much higher price in the form of a less civilized society that is less just and prone to violence.