Anarchy. Does it have any chances?
70Not that I never thought about it before, but ever since I published my socialism vs capitalism hub, this was one of my most frequent musings. I really like the idea of anarchy, I do. All my life experience teaches me that most of the trouble in our modern lives comes from governments. I really want to get rid of them.
The last drop in the cup was the letter that I just received from the VA treasury. They think I did not pay them enough in taxes for the year 2006, and want me to pay roughly $250,000.00 more. Yes, you read this right - two hundred fifty thousand dollars in state taxes. The fact is that I did not make a taxable cent in 2006.
Even if you count tax-exempt income coming from consulting to international organizations, it came to a measly $15K for that year. Some idiotic wash sale rule showed a virtual few hundred taxable bucks, and tax on those has been paid - even though in reality I was a few thousand bucks down for the year on my trades. And this was the year when I terminated all my stock market operations, so not even a remote possibility of some carry-over shorts counted as profit.
|
What Has Government Done to Our Money? and The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar
Price: $17.00
List Price: $17.00 |
|
The Case Against the Fed
Price: $8.50
List Price: $9.95 |
|
A History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II
Price: $19.00
List Price: $19.00 |
|
America's Great Depression
Price: $18.85
List Price: $28.99 |
I ask you how would one call this attempt to rob me of the amount of money I never ever even had in my life? The most polite name I could come up with would be a waste of taxpayers' money. Don’t you pay those idiots' salary? You do, and I do, albeit very reluctantly. And any area of government involvement I had a chance to deal with during my not so short life showed the same pattern of extreme waste. I have no doubt we all would have been way richer and lived way happier should we find a way to get rid of governments.
Yet looks like it can't be done. I don't need to list the pages and pages of the reasons people think why they need governments. The mere fact that the vast majority of people all over the World believe they can't live without government makes any kind of attempt to build a governmentless territory doomed.
Look at the history of mankind. Can you find just one place and one time where and when there were no government for a laughably small period of, say, dozen years? I could not. In one form or another, it always been with us, starting from a tribe leader in prehistoric times, and ending with Obama.
This leads me to conclusion that we can't be without a government. As much as I would love to get rid of one, it is impossible, and therefore anarchism is yet another Utopia - and coming from a country that paid dozens of millions of lives for an attempt to implement the latest and greatest Utopia, I would be the last person to call for a second try.
So, where this leaves me? At a pretty grim place, where I know that government is something that hurts us badly, yet I see there is no way of getting rid of it. It's impossible, I am pretty sure by now. I did play with the anarchy idea for some time, but now I see it is an Utopia. Well, since we can't get rid of government, we have to learn how to live with it, so it does minimum harm to us, right?
This sort of brings us to the forms of governments, all those monarchies, democracies, republics and all this old crap that has been exhaustively described by Plato and did not change an iota since. Humanity is pretty consistent, and while we keep putting all new dressings on the old ideas, it does not change the ideas themselves. Locke and Co made an attempt, pretty solid attempt I would say, but now we are watching the final phases of its failure. What's next? Yet another re-dressing?
|
Anarchy T-Shirt
Price: $14.95
|
|
Anarchy In Action
Price: $12.38
List Price: $15.95 |
|
Anarchy Eyewear Diablo Sunglasses - Polarized (Shiny Black Frames - Smoke Polarized Lens)
Price: $65.00
List Price: $65.00 |
|
Anarchy State and Utopia
Price: $34.46
List Price: $45.00 |
Likely. If I remember correctly, failed democracy gives way to tyranny, according to Plato. And all tells me he is right yet another time, I personally have no doubt it is coming, and yes, I know what I am talking about, and you can say I am overreacting as many times as you like - it does not change my mind. But this is really not the point I am trying to make, you all know my views on this by now, and wasting time and space for yet another re-iteration seems to resemble a government waste.
I was thinking for a while about a way to break this vicious cycle of Plato's four forms of government waltz, and this idiotic claim from VA government actually gave me an idea - thank you, even government may be useful sometimes, albeit not in the ways it is intended to. Another push towards this idea were countless statements from government lovers about their willingness to pay for this and that, even though they ourselves don’t use some kind of government service, but do think it is necessary to have under government.
In fact there were probably more roots to this idea. Some I can think about right away are the fact that people keep giving to charities, and many people think government should play a charity role, too. Not that those initiated the idea, but they really snugly clicked into place when idea finally came to light.
Guess it's time to finally get to the idea itself. What is a common denominator of all the forms of government, from tyranny to democracy? Well, except for they are governments. The method of funding! All of them use involuntary recurring payments from their citizens to put money in the coffers. Taxes in other words. Yes, even under democracy they are involuntary, cause the moment you stop paying them, you are preparing a jail sentence for yourself. You have to pay them, whether you like it or not.
Now, here is the idea - what if we change the method of funding from involuntary to voluntary? Like charities do? Government has a number of projects publicly listed, and you contribute as much as you deem appropriate to any number of projects in any combination. If you don't think the project is needed, you don’t pay. If you are not satisfied with the last year results for a particular project you paid for, you don’t pay anymore. And so on...
I did not think it through to a great extent, I just thought I might throw it in for a discussion here, and might get some feedback. I do see a number of shortcomings, yet even considering them this idea seems to be much more realistic then getting rid of a government altogether. Tell me what do you think. :)
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
LOL Close, but not exactly my thoughts. I was actually thinking hard on how to get rid of government altogether, not how to replace a bunch of old robbers with a bunch of new :)
And you might want to read a bit about an anarchy, if anything it is opposite to despotism. :)
I know of a few towns were anarchy reigns on the local level quite well. If everything were to crumble, I seriously doubt much would change for them.
Good for them I would think - yet they still pay state and federal taxes, right? Or I guess those would have been just a few prisons by now :)
Taxes? You can't tax people who shoot coyote for supper. :D Seriously, most in the town think they are rich if their personal incomes have reached the 'poverty' level. The most common tax paid is social security.
One place did not have a government for about thirty years and that was Pictairn Island in the South Pacific. However, the mutineers were running from the law, and the last thing they wanted was an actual government. The first years were chaotic because everyone was fighting over women and resources, until only two men were left standing. Pitcairn had a strong familial structure once the two left finally were reduced to one, but not a true government between the years of 1790-1834. Even today they do not like government very much because they are very isolated, and feel the UK only butts in when the media scents scandal. Today they could pretty much could run themselves if Trans Pacific shipping were what it used to be.
LOL Lvorven, do they pay social security, or social security pays them?
Thanks Sweetie Pie, that's an interesting case, I'll have to look it up and read more about it. Sounds delicious. :)
Oh they pay... they are a proud lot, for the most part.
Pitcairn is a very unique place. However, things have changed a bit since several men were accused of sexual molestation, and now he UK guards them much more heavily. Some of the islanders said they were not given fair trials, and some of the victims said their rapists got off easily. I am not takiing sides, but I have heard the trial was not fair on both sides. They want things to go back to how they were before this crisis.
Oh my,...you have read my thoughts,..Now the world knows,..LOL
Very good hub, should bring a lot to talk about !!!
Misha - you've got a great idea there - the thing is, because we HAVE to pay, we see the government as separate from ourselves, even if we vote it to power. The moment there is involvement, it becomes OUR givernment. Somehow, I've always found that people are a lot more generous and conscientious when they don't have to be - one of the vagaries of humanity? - so maybe, just maybe, this could be the way to go. No like, no pay - I love the idea!
OK Lvorven, so they still are a part of the state, and they still support their government. They might like or dislike what government does, but they don;t have any choice on whether to ay whatever government tells them to pay or not.
Well, if it might look like an anarchy on a local level, I would argue it is really not :)
Sweetie, so far no idea what to say, I did not research the case yet, but I definitely will :)
AIM Thanks, I guess we all sort of think about those same issues :)
Shalini, yeah, I guess I like it too :) Let's see what people have to say against it though, we might find something that will invalidate the idea...
Everyone has their own opinion of the people on Pitcairn, but without being too biased I will just say the media was a little harsh on them too.
Won't surprise me a tiny bit :)
Ok, it's almost morning over here, so I am hitting a sack. Good night everybody :)
The problem with government is that it always spins out of control like a drunk that's had10 too many.
I think your idea is doomed to failure because everyone will not want to pay for programs that they think do not affect them. Or what if we looked to the liberals in this country to contribute to national security? We would have had many more attacks on American soil, ending with the murder of thousands or millions. The problem in that case is that people often choose to be blind to the facts because they are zealous about what they believe, beyond the truth. I would not want those people deciding for me what is best since I will suffer the consequences and I have no zealous view to blind me to them.
In the end, most people are selfish and short sighted - and now I am sounding like a Marxist I think - the elite being the most informed, get to decide what's best for the lower classes who aren't smart enough to decide for themselves. Unfortunately, today this is true.
Excellent hub, you give food for thought. Although I think anarchy will lead to complete chaos in the majority of cases, it may in the end be no worse than what we have now.
Misha there have been a few rich people who have donated to the 'cause'. I think later they saw how foolish they were as the money was just thrown away on politicians dreams. We do have a program where one can just donate into the IRS I believe. Yes, you are right, anachy is but fantasy. One or a few shall always have rule over the majority either by force or by consent. Alwyas has been that way. I think otherwise one has anarchy with no laws or government to help the downtrodden and the real possibility of tyranny and despotism from some.
The greatest challenge then is how to fund a government. We started by taxing whiskey causing rebellion short lived at best. We have governments within govenments and too many laws and taxes. Even a church is governed with 'taxes'. I have no answers. Great hub my man.
I was bitten by the wash sale rule this year. I jumped out of a postion to cut my losses; and, then got back in less than 30 days later when it started moving up again which triggered the wash sale rule because it was less than 30 days. US tax laws can sure make it hard to make a living. Now Obama wants even more of my money.
Misha, all forms of government ARE by the consent of the governed. How can this be so? Because people can always leave, if they so choose. Or be shot trying to leave. ;->
Freedom costs. As long as submitting to the present government costs less than trying to get rid of it, then people will submit. When the cost of government exceeds the cost of getting rid of it, people get rid of it. Hence the cycles.
See my hub about the evolution of selfishness.
Misha, you write good hubs but why don't you publish so frequently? I'm just curious to know if there was a reason!
Misha, interesting. But evil always bring the law and rules. If we would be free of evil then government will not exist. There are more thoughts to it. I think the best thing is to have a leader than the government. There is only One suitable Leader. God's anointed One. What do you think?
I completely agree that anarchy is a Utopian ideal. I came to this realization quite a while ago despite my longing for an end to the wasteful and destructive wreck we call government. Since the dawn of civilization the human race (or at least a few select humans with plenty of able-bodied sheeple) has been obsessed with empire building or spreading some form of government (democracy, communism, theocracy etc.). None of them really work, and while some are certainly worse than others all of them endeavor to keep the elite in power and the citizens working to that end.
I love how you boil seemingly complicated, intertwined matters down to the basics and follow a bottom-up approach. That said, the skeptic in me, who has worked for non-profits for years and tried to do fundraising for small and also bigger causes, knows that in this day and age, selfishness prevails. Most people, if given the choice to yank out their wallet and hand over a few bucks, will choose not to … in fact, they justify this decision to themselves by hoping others will pick up the slack. This goes especially for the folks in higher income brackets. We'd have to instill a sense of civic duty and community again before we tackled the fiscal aspects of this (rather fascinating) concept. And … just wondering … how would we pay the salaries for those lowly bureaucrats? We couldn't expect them to donate their time … or could we? ;-)
Actually Misha, I think that their is a fed tax form that can be filled out, IF you can get ahold of it, where you can actually chose which taxes you will pay to what.
I know this tax form exist, trying to find it is another story. Fed income tax is not legal, they know it and to make it legitamite they needed to include a tax form consenting to the money being "volunteered" to them.
However the catch is probably something like this. In small print.. failure to fill out one of these forms is the same as consenting to it. ;)
All we have to do is find this form. I am almost absolutely certian it exist. And sorry they sent you a letter like that. I did a double take when I looked at the number and from state taxes! Geez.
Have fun sorting out the tax thing. I served in the Military in Virginia and learned they are Way F**** Up in the Tax department. I am a Texan by choice so I don't have to pay state income tax.
TMG
Yeah Alexander, this is exactly the problem I am trying to deal with. It spins out of control because it itself got to decide how much it got to be paid. No wonder it is getting more and more pay with every passing year. Hence the idea to actually let people decide how much to pay and for what.
I do not share your fear though. If it ever gets to be attempted, it won't fail for a reason you think it would. Monaco has a laughable army, yet nobody attacks them. Yes, people won't pay for idiotic projects - and that is exactly why I came up with this idea. :)
I do agree that for many people being led is the only way to live this life. Yet I would argue that it is not like that by design, the vast majority of kids are born bright, curious, and perfectly capable of learning how to take care of their lives. This is us, parents and society, who dumbs them down to unimaginably low levels through education. So no, I don't think this will be a problem. Faced with a situation of a real choice, where they can make a real difference, people will learn pretty fast, I am sure. :)
The big problem with government is that it can use force against you. It can either deprive you of your life or liberty. No other institution in the world can do that. No corporation, cartel, syndicate can do that. In addition, like you've mentioned above, only government can forcibly take money from you. The entire basis of government is force.
No government, on the other hand, means that something will have to be found to replace the monopoly current government has on things like law, the courts, roads, schools etc. It's not that far fetched to see alternatives to those monopolies. Common law, which is the basis for US and British law, was created by centuries of judgments handed down by judges and juries. In that respect it can be thought of as the collective wisdom of humanity through the ages.
Schools, of course, would actuall educate students, rather than indoctrinate them into particular belief systems. Roads would become much safer, last longer and not cost nearly as much as public roads do. Law enforcement could be handled by private security forces which would be beholden to their employers, the tenants, rather than political forces as you see in state based law enforcement.
All of this together would maximize choice and minimize the use of force. So long as we, as a people, defend the property and liberty of our fellow citizens, anarchy could be a viable alternative to government force.
Charlie, I have no doubt there are such people. Don't really look like the brightest ones for me, yet definitely some of highly compassionate ones. But I am not talking about donating in addition to taxes, I am talking about getting rid of taxes altogether, and putting all government projects and agencies on donation funding. If agency doesn't get funding, it don't exist, as easy as that. I would expect the size of government to shrink dramatically LOL. IDK, may be the core part like president and congress and supreme court should be funded involuntarily, this is discussible - but all the rest should totally depend on population.
As for anarchy, I don't think it leads to tyranny, but democracy definitely does. :)
Bob, I was doing more of a daytrading stuff. It was not uncommon to me to open and close position in the same security several times during a trading day. :)
Aya, sorry, I did not get to your hub yet. But I promise I will, I just want to get some chuck of more or less peaceful time, so I can concentrate on reading it :)
Yes, all governments are by consent, not gonna argue. However, other than emigration, one does not really have venue of expressing a lack of consent. And public really can only make a revolution, there is no other way to get rid of the bad government. If we make funding dependable on people's choice, they will have much more influence on the government.
As for the costs of keeping and getting rid of, I do agree too - but with important correction - we are talking communally perceived costs, not real ones. :)
I disagree with Aya. Government and its overthrow is about force not consent. Government can force its subjects to do things and the subjects, when they've had enough, can revolt. It's all about the use of force. It would be about choice, if there were a place to go without government, but there is no such place in the world.
Interestingly enough, the US was the majority destination for immigration because it had the least restrictive government in the world. Something to think about.
Weblog thank you, and I just do as I like. I am not making money here, I am entertaining myself. Sometimes it involves publishing a hub, but usually no. :)
Vladimir, we will never be free of evil, at least not in this world - therefore government will always exist. Exactly the conclusion I came to before writing this hub. Not sure really if it is about evil, or just human desire to be lead, but you can't really argue with history - government is inevitable as dawn and dusk.
God anointed one immediately reminds me of Russian tzars, and I won't say I think they were ideal leaders. Commies were a nightmare, no question, but commies would have had no chances should rulers at the time were acceptable...
In fact the idea on voluntary government funding really does not care what form of government we have - it suits any one of them (may be except for tyranny - for obvious reasons) - and improves all of them. :)
Not sure if you've heard of this system of tax - I personally think it's fantastic and is a solution to allot of problems. Basically no-one can avoid paying tax - this of course includes the mega rich who seem to have the amazing power to avoid paying their share because of hidden companies and trusts. Also means that any business who tries to take profits from the country they earned it from without paying tax, can't.
Tax laws are designed to confuse. The tax departments seems to be a cult among itself that no one person understands and therefore no one person can deconstruct it - so it seems.
Believe it or not this debits tax system is administered by the bank (scarey at first) but all funds are held in a trust - which is what the Federal Reserve is supposed to be, but is not. The money raised belongs to the people and is solely for the use of infrastructure and the basic necessities for human existence - includes health, education, sewerage.
Nothing is hidden. In effect the system works like a transparent balance sheet. In Australia there was a state and federal debits tax which has now ceased. But the system of how the taxes were collected were based on bank accounts. It was extremely simple to administer.
And before you throw this baby out, consider that you will be paying less than a third of the taxes you currently pay. This system actually increases tax revenue because there is no way tax avoiders can avoid it. Most tax evaders are in the higher end of the scale.
I doubt this system will get in whilst the world is run by business. Paradoxically it has to be introduced by governments which goes against this hub in a way. But this system puts governments where they need to be - their purpose is to look after our sewerage systems isn't it?
Ed, yes, I am in total agreement with you - all what we tried so far did not work. And anarchy won't work either, cause it is not possible to achieve. If it were, there should have been cases in the history when this was done. :)
Thanks Zollstock. I wouldn't be that harsh on rich folks though. They are handing out money after they already been robbed by government. If you pay taxes officially in the USA and you make enough money, you are giving to government up to 40%! This is insane, really. I wonder how anybody does any charity at all after this. The other thing is that most of more or less rich people are rich because they don;t throw away their money. You have to convince them your case is worthy if you want to get money. :)
So no, I do understand what you are saying, but I don't think it could harm voluntary government support in any way. People will pay for worthy cases, without any instillation of civic duty and such, just because people with money are capable of understanding cause and effect :)
That could be a nice form Sandy, but I am afraid it is yet another one of Urban legends. If it were this way, enough people would have found it already and made a public domain :)
And yes LOL, the letter really shocked me for several hours, but by the next day I was able to get over it :)
Hey TMG, thanks, my accountant is already dealing with it :)
But if you live in Cali a certain portion of the year, you have to pay their taxes whatever they are, right?
That's funny I thought we already had Anarchy several times in the last hundred years at least. Isn't Anarchy "utter confusion"
Yeah LDT, I too love the idea on anarchy, you don't really need to convince me in its beauty. I was playing with it for last several months, in and out, from different perspectives. And as I just said in this hub, I came to conclusion that it is Utopia. Every group of people, even if left to mind its own business, eventually comes to some form of government. I don't know of any exception. So anarchy is not sustainable, whatever our theoretical constructions tell us. Pity, but this seems to be a historical fact.
And I think you are not in a real disagreement with Aya, but I leave this to her to clarify :)
LOL Julie, you really surprised me. Did not expect you to be in the camp of rich blamers. :)
I am not really talking about tax avoidance. It is unavoidable under forced taxation. I am talking about full tax freedom. You don't pay a dime if you don't want to, and you pay only how much you want, and to support the cases you want, that's the idea. :)
Someone, I can't remember any case of complete anarchy, enlighten me please. In the absense of the cetral governments there are always competing warlords...
Hey Misha - not sure what you're getting at there. This system takes the rich out of the equation. Taxation in our country is so over administered that the administrators don't know right from left.
I'm confused - how am I a rich blamer? Which I was int hat category - I earned less than you did this year and I'd best not be sent a bill for any owed taxes!
I may have gone over to another street including this form of tax with your hub on anarchy. But to me it's a solution to take government and put it where they should be and it puts big business where I'd like to see them and I have much more control over my taxes.
Jewels withoiut government, big business would not be able to exist. You're asking the fox to guard the henhouse. They use your envy and misplaced anger to get you to play the game, all the while both polticians and thier big business cronies are scamming you. And so it goes.
LOL Julie, cause you were blaming rich for avoiding taxes. I was not talking about rich or poor here. I would rather not pay taxes at all. :)
And no, I don;t think businesses are the root of evil. When they become big they become pretty inefficient, no question about that - but they become big only because there are regulations in place, a product of government. :)
Misha I was thinking of all the confusion about how our government works,and what it does ,and has been doing over the last hundred years or so! I 'm making light of our government and how it works.Total confusion ,on purpose of course lol!
Not really ledefensetch. Australias Reserve Bank is much different to your Federal Reserve. Banks here are also audited. It's the system that is used and it gives a clear paper trail. Have a read if you're inclined. I heard about this system about 10 years ago and I still like it. If the banking system is used in this country, it's very easy to account for all the taxes you've paid and so you will easily know if you've been scammed. One problem though, less Accountants needed in the world. Perhaps they could be used more for helping people get their business running more efficiently instead of tax returns.
Misha - Now I see what you're saying. I don't mind paying taxes provided everyone pays their fair share. I like infrastructure and maintenance of it and I don't mind paying. What I hate is when I pay and others who earn more money than I do, don't pay a cent. Grrrrr.
LOL Someone, confusion and anarchy as a form of government are two totally different things. Yes, people sometimes use the word anarchy to denote the state of confusion, but this is not what I meant here :)
Julie, I think we are talking about different things here. You are talking about how better collect taxes, I am talking about no need for taxes at all :)
What would happen if all the people got together and stopped paying the income tax? Their would Anarchy if ever saw it.Half the people live off of government as employees or government programs
On second thought the government doesn't seem to care they spend money that doesn't exist anyway
Spending money that doesn't exist is like living on credit AND A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DOING THAT IN THEIR PERSONAL LIFE ANYWAY
They won't. This is the only possible answer to you question.
And I think you might want to research anarchy as a form of government a bit more, I don;t see you understanding it. :)
Whether it is a Utopia or not, I guess Anarchy will take place someday bcz nothign stands still, and once the people are fed up, uprising will be the answer. I'm pessimistic nor anarchist, but history tells a lot about this. Great hub Misha. Thumps Up!
Jewels, most of what you say is soft leftist propaganda, more Progressive than anything else. Australia has a central bank, sure it's not like the Federal Reserve, but it is still a central bank. The problems we're having is not from lack of oversight but from the existence of a central bank. I could go into why the Fed is set up differently than other central banks, but it would take some explaining. Suffice to say the Fed is set up the way it is because at the time of its creation, there was quite a bit of resistance to the notion of a central bank in this country. That's where most of the confusion starts.
http://mises.org/books/historyofmoney.pdf
Murray Rothbard wrote an excellent book discussing the history of money and banking in the US. I suggest you give it a read as I've grown tired of arguing with people. If you find that book enlightening at all, I'd suggest further study of their books on central banking and fractional reserve banking. I think you will find, as I did, that fractional reserve banking is at the root of many of our problems today. But I leave that up for you to decide.
Shamelab, if I understood you correctly, again I think you are like Someone missing the point. I do not equate uprising to anarchy. I am talking about anarchy in the meaning of governmentless community. :)
Julie, just saw your last addition. Frankly, you and hate don't go well together in my image of you.:)
So, you hate it when those who make more than you underpay taxes. How about when those who make less than you underpay taxes? How about those who chose to live off the taxes you pay? I think you have some thinking to do in this area. :)
And again, trying to steer you back to the topic of the hub. It was not about who pays more and who pays less and how to make everybody pay and make taxes fair.
It was about a realization that the problem of getting out of control government we inevitably have with every government is rooted in the government itself deciding what pay it should receive. Pretty much like employee deciding on the size of their own salary. The only possible outcome is that both government and employee will eventually run those who pay out of business...
So I am proposing to get back to the sensible approach - those who pay determine the scope of services rendered, and decide on how much is paid, if anything. :)
Thanks for helping me to formulate this better :)
Right Misha, you're right in your approach, and you misunderstood me too! I have always been fascinated with anarchy, and it is an uprising believe me but a very quiet one! It's a cry against institutionalism and frigid, out-dated laws... No one desires anarchy I am sure, but we have to accept the fact that it became, in time, some kind of a systemised movement... Maybe i am wrong but who knows?
Thanks Misha.
Shamel.
Misha, all I want to know, is what the hell are you going to do about that ginormous tax bill? Do you have to pay it first and then query it? Do they throw you in jail if you don't pay? What are you going to do?
Hey Misha,
Just got back to the comments,
I have to pay California tax on what I make there, which is only rental income, that I am able to offset with my deductions.
My main job in engineering is earned in Texas so I get by with that, because I do not reside in California anymore. It is complicated for me in that respect.
TMG
Shamel, I guess i just leave it here. Looks like we are speaking different languages. :)
Cindy, of course I am not paying it. Even if I had that kind of money, I definitely do not owe them to VA. My accountant is already writing them a letter :)
TMG, good for you! I thought you are still in San Diego, hence the question :)
You did it again, Misha – whittled the human mind down to the core. But even if the well-off comprehend cause and effect, would they support causes that don't benefit them directly? Would someone in a higher income bracket (no matter how much that person bleeds when being taxed ;-) understand the concept of “common good” and choose to support causes that strengthen society across the board?
How about we institute a flat tax on every income bracket, but workers get to choose how their 15 ….20 … 25% (?) are invested in deserving country-improvement projects?
The problem with that Zollstock is that who decides what is a deserving project? Shouldn't the person donating the money be able to choose what charity they support? I'm sure that there will be some people who chose not to do charity at all, but they will be far outnumbered by the people who donate. Once you start any wealth redistribution scheme, you start down a slippery slope that ends you up right where we are today.
Zollstock, I think they would, and they still do now - if they think a case is worth supporting. I don't think a rich person is any dumber then myself, and I do support cases I think worthy and where I think I can make a difference.
But your understanding of common good and another person understanding of common good may be quite different, and this is the beauty of this idea as I see it. Cases that people do think are beneficial to common good automatically receive funding. The more people believe in such cases, the more funding they receive.
And thanks LDT for chiming in, yes I agree :)
I don't think there is a way to get rid of governments where there is a society of people living together which is pretty much everywhere, although I like the thought of it. Best suggestion I can come up with is for everyone (in democratic societies anyway) to keep voting out the ones that do not deliver on their manifestos and get into office under false pretenses. What else can you do.
As for the tax problem, there are always idiots who make gross mistakes, but still manage to keep their jobs. Don't get me wrong anyone can make a mistake and that is to be expected, but if you do it consistently and incompetently all the time you should loose your job, but that does not seem to happen to government employees.
Great Hub Misha and good comments.
As for an example of anarchy you might want to check out post World War II Hong Kong and the tenure of Sir John James Cowperthwaite as the British Royal governor. Cowperthwaite served in Hong Kong prior to World War II and following the war was appointed governor. However, in the months between the Japanese Army leaving the colony following the surrender of Japan and the arrival of Cowperthwaite to resume British control the colony was effectively without a government.
When Cowperthwaite arrived he not only found the colony functioning smoothly but also prospering and quickly recovering economically from the effects of the war. Seeing what the people had accomplished without a government, Cowperthwaite set about to rule with minimal government and minimal taxes for the island.
The result was that the tiny Asian colony of Britain had the fastest growing economy in the world, achieved a living standard for its people which was equal to that of Western Europe and North America. In fact its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was greater than that of both the UK (its mother country) and Israel combined (both the United Kingdom and Israel had socialist governments at the time.
Further, despite the fact that the colony was swamped with poor refugees from the Communist Chinese mainland (the refugees resulted in a ten fold increase in population during the two or three decades following the war) and had minimal government provided social services and no government run health care, living standards and quality of health in the colony was as good as or better than those of the developed Western countries.
However, as I pointed out in an article on the governor on my blog ( http://shamrocks147.blogspot.com/2006/02/tribute-t ) much of Hong Kong's success was do to the strong leadership and hard work of Sir John Cowperthwaite who had to continually fight off attempts by both big government residents of the island and visiting Colonial Office bureaucrats from London who felt more government was needed.
I agree that anarchy is more of a Utopian ideal than an achievable goal. However, we can act to keep government to a minimum and limit its power to tax and spend.
The U.S. Constitution clearly states what powers the Federal Government has and the Tenth Amendment is even clearer in stating that powers not granted to the Federal government and not denied to the states in the Constitution are reserved for the states. Strictly enforcing the Tenth Amendment (which has been ignored for so long that many people don't even know about it) would result in a drastic reduction in the size and power of the Federal government.
Reducing the Federal government and its habit of taking money from citizens and then giving it back to the states in matching grants for programs would greatly reduce the need for more state taxes as states are forced to tax their citizens to come up with money to match the Federal grants or see the Federal tax dollars paid by their citizens go to other states. Also, it is much easier to organize and amend a state constitution to limit the government's powers than the Federal Constitution and much easier to organize and defeat candidates for state and local offices than national candidates.
Again, great article. Keep up the good work.
Wow, nice idea on volunary funding for the government. Who would pay them anything? Seriously, I think you many get anarchy in the next couple of years--whether it will be utopia or a scary mess I don't know, but the scary mess we have now can't last, I think it will fall apart. Then what? I don't know. I give up on making these predictions. I'd say all bets are off.
Bill, my roomie, keeps having IRS problems and he's a truckdriver. He does exactly what he's supposed to do, nothing funny, nothing complicated, and it seems like every couple of years he gets a 'give us a bunch of money NOW' letter from them. They're total ass bastards.
I don't agree with you on much of anything politically but I'm sorry you've got the IRS on you. It's no fun and they never let up either.
It'll be a scary mess, Pam. Too many entitlement babies are out there. Think Katrina writ large. Nobody can fight the IRS, not even the IRS, the tax code is so messed up you can find something in one part of the code to back you and then the IRS can turn around and find something in the code to back them. It's an unholy mess and these are they guys you want to put in charge of social welfare. Just think about what they'll do when they're in charge of health care.
Yeah Brian, yet voting does not work for the very reason that despite of all the rhetorics, most people only care to earn more and work less, and vote for those who promise just that - which are invariably liers and con artists. I was susprised to learn that it was well known at the times of Plato, yet completely forgotten by the 20th century...
Chuck, thank you bunches! How could I forget about Hong-Kong?! It is definitely not an example of sustainable anarchy, but it is a great example of the thing closest to free markets! Nobody came closer, and nobody was developing that dynamically! Thanks again Chuck!
Thanks for stopping by my beloved political enemy :)
Actually I think this were you who was saying that you were willing to pay for government projects you personally didn't benefit from, so you are partly responsible for this idea :)
So, you will pay, and almost all others will pay, including myself - for the projects we think are to the common benefit. Yet I won't pay for Iraq war or bailouts, and hundreds of other creepy things government does nowadays. And they won't do those, because they won't have money for that. If they try to trick me and use the money I paid for something else, it will immediately reflect on performance of the project I paid for, and I just stop paying for it, too. They'll get it pretty fast. :)
As for IRS, I actually don't have much against them, except for silly rules they follow like a wash sale rule - but this is by design, all tax laws are designed to confuse. :) I was able to get rid of them they tried to get some unearned money from me. This time it is not IRS though, it is a state of Virginia, and so far they act much nastier than IRS. Thanks, we'll see how it goes, my accountant is working on it. :)
Yeah, LDT I agree - as usual :)
Yeah. I don't mind paying for schools even though I don't have kids who use them anymore, or roads even if I don't drive (I do drive but if I didn't), or housing for poor people or old people even though I'm not that old (yet), but the war, AIG, the banks... these things I don't much care to pay for, yet that's where all the money goes.
Still we do differ (enemies maybe but I hope you would not shoot me!) because I do want government and believe it's possible and can be good, but you don't believe that or want it.
Like I said, I think you will win, because it's all a big mess. It can't last. :)
So why argue? You will win anyway. It's falling down, all of it.
Come on Pam, this is not the type of anarchy I am talking about. Hardly Utopia :(
The problem with government provided services (schools, housing for poor, etc.) is not just that some of us are mean and don't want to pay for them (yes, that's me), but that even when all taxpayers are happy to pay, the government services are lousy. People tend to treat other people well only when they are paying customers. Every welfare recipient I've ever spoken to complained of being treated like dirt -- not by the taxpayers -- but by the parasitic clerks who administer welfare -- whose very jobs depend on there being welfare to hand out.
It's not just welfare, it's mental health and educational services too. I've had plenty of experiences with both and those experiences make me a champion of home schooling and emancipating kids.
LOL Guys, I would love to have no government too, you don't have to tell me about its failures. But it's not going to happen any time soon, at least not during our lifetimes, so I am searching for a coping mechanism :)
I assume your writting about how you feel about the subject
Here is a link to The now deceased movie director "Aron Russo" who made the movie "From freedom to fasism" about the income tax system.
Misha, I think that the only real vote any of us has is with our pocketbook, (if you exclude more violent means). Are local taxes too high? Then move out of town. Does your state have an income tax? Move to one that doesn't. Does your municipality not allow you to own the kind of dog you want? Move to another one.
The problem is that sooner or later all places on earth will become too densely inhabited to move away from a forced choice situation. That's when it may become necessary to stand and fight.
Population density and freedom are related. The more densely populated an area is, the more it tends toward socialism.
my mistake apparenty the link I gave for Arron Russo's from freedom to facisim has been removed. I found a few u-tube videos on the subject anyhow.
Thanks someone. I don't usually watch videos on serious topics, but I will find something to read about him :)
Yeah Aya, currently it is. But it is not always possible. Take my case for example - I would have been out of USA for a few years already - if not for my wife, who likes it here so far. :)
USSR was more extreme case - you could not move out...
Misha & ledefensetech,
I may have not made my point as clearly as I had hoped. **If** we instituted this flat tax rate in the Utopia we are dreaming up, then I would hope that under this evidence-based, accountability-driven system, each taxpayer selects which agencies or endeavors his hard-earned bucks go to.
I also admire your optimism about people's willingness to give. I've worked in the trenches of non-profits, education, and even health care for years and have had to accept the fact that when it comes to money (and by extension, status), most people will hoard their cash, gold bars, stock bundles, what have you. Yes, there are some of all income brackets who give, but I find that the better off someone is, the less they acknowledge the needs of those who are struggling. Sorry … that's the practical realist speaking here ;-).
Yeah, but your experiences were with people who have their weatlh stripped by them from government. That's why they try to hoard what they have. It's the "I gave at the office" syndrome. If you look back at philanthropy prior to welfare, you see that people like Rockefeller and Carnegie endowing colleges, libraries and other charities. So you really can't say that you've seen people hoard anything. Even if they don't give, why should they? Giving to those less fortunate is a choice and each of us have a different vision on what charity we'd like to give to.
Zollstock, my experience is that people are happy to give -- but not necessarily money. People give of their time to endeavors they really believe in. They will make a place in their home for a person who has a transitory problem. They will give items which are of value still, but they no longer need. I think it's a mistake to ask that they give money only.
Zollstock, I agree to what LDT and Aya said, can't think of anything to add right now. :)
Other than for some trivia. Did you know that USSR had a flat income tax rate of 13%? And Russia still maintains it, which makes its survival chances in this global disaster much better than those of the USA...
That's the globalists doing.They are trying to make a global government more palitable to those who don't want it like the Americans
I read a book about the reasoning behind a system of government that sounds distressingly like communism BUT ONLY TO SOMEONE WHO CARRIES ALL THE BAGGAGE THAT COMES WITH THE TERM AS WE KNOW IT.MUCH LIKE A PREJUDICE SOMEONE HAS TOWARD SOMEONE ELSE BECAUSE OF THE TEACHING OF THOSE WHO PREACH IT OR THOSE WHO PERVERT IT.NO ONE WILL BE TOO RICH OR TOO POOR in such a system.
The idea is that everyone could make as much money as they want and are able as long as they followed some fairly simple rules
1.No one person or groups of persons such as corporations will ever be allowed .to own property such as houses or manufacturing facillities or land. All such buildings and land would be jointly owned by everyone and the elected officials would administer all financial transactiions ,such as banking ,savings and loans and all transactions would be tracked by for any fraudulant activity that may occur.
2. All construction and maintainance of buildings and the exterior of homes would be done by privately owned companies or corporations as the case may be and funded by a tithe system where everyone voluntarily gives ten percent of their income toward this governance of land and property . This would have to be agreed to by everyone participating before the beginning of the formation of such a community for obvious practical reasons.Otherwise there would not be the funding necessary for the building and maintainance ,or the administration of the communites projects.
3..An individual or family could decorate and furnish their home or apartment interiors to their liking and according to their own budget and taste.They could do it themselves or pay to have it done.
4.All manufacturing items will be made of only the best materials available and with only the best manufacturing processes and procedures then known. These decisions will be made by experts in all fields of manufacture from the building and manufacturing trades as well as clothing and,appliances
5.If for some reason someone wanted to exchange properties with someone else they could do so,just as some people do today.If there is a difference in properties they could come to an agreement by paying the other party the difference.The buying and selling of property for the purpose of inflating property values would not be allowed.
6.Inflationary stock exchange transactions will never be tolerated.Only fair exchanges will be allowed according to market value.No manipulation of the markets will possible if the majority involved are trustworthy.Wage and price controls will not vary much due to stability of both.
7.Those who amass great wealth will not be allowed to use it to undermine the community in any way All transactions will be tracked and checked multiple times by individuals as well as groups of individuals for accuracy as well as integrity of each transaction. This may be done by computer for everyday transactions such as store purchases.All recipts are to be kept.as if they were moneyAll recipts will be given a unique transaction code that will be tracable to any transaction following it ad infinitem.Each transaction can be traced back to it's point of origin without dispute.as to who when and where someone initiated a transaction going back to the initial one.
8. Upon the death of an individual all the wealth they may have accumilated while they lived if not already spent would automatically go into the general fund of the commonwealth for the benefit of all.If the deceased has a surviving spouse he or she will be allowed to continue to live in the manor they are accustomed to until their death at the time of their spouses death with money used from the general fund as this is only right and proper.This includes any minor children up to and including the age of twenty one .
9.All children will be taught to read and write by age three and continue learning all year round until the age of twenty one all paid through the general fund for everyone.
10.Eventually the work day will not exceed 2 hours as a result of automation and their will bearly be enough jobs for everyone There will plenty of time for learning and learning is always paid for by the general fund and those who have the means may donate it to this fund ,but it is not required. Those who have the same skill level in any trade or profession will be paid the same amount that is fair according to that skill level.The amount of money needed to live will be kept very low because there will be no interest payments of any kind,and no inflationThere will be no middle man to mark up the cost of manufactured goods and all goods will be sold through a mart sytem much like our department stores without the frills The cost of food will be close to the cost of seed and water and the cost of labor will be very low as very little money will be needed to pay for food and housing and clothing Almost everything else is funded though the tithe system.or by funds left by the deceased..The more one makes in their business during their lifetime the more will be left behind by them upon their death unless they spend it before their death.Either way they will not be allowed to leave it to anyone for practical reasons having to do with monarchies,kings or other ruling classes we have had in the past and nolonger wish to have in the future.
11.Single women of the age of twenty one or older will only be allowed to work in the womens and childrens clothing departments of marts Men and women will not work closely together outside the home other than in family gatherings to cut down on sexual temptation for the good of the institution of marrage.
12..Married women with children will not work outside the home until all of their children are at least twenty one and finished school.as the nurturing of their children must come first.
13.Women will not fight in war as they will be bringing up the next generation and war dulls the nurturing sensabilities of those who go. A nurturing mother is essential if the next generation is to continue with at least the same emotional health of the preceeding one.The continuation of civilization depends on this.
That is communism. It's not because of any baggage, but because it does not respect property rights. Any society which does not do so will, sooner or later, fall prey to those who believe they have a right to take.
There are so many problems with your above statements that it would take an entire hub to refute them all. One in particular I find distressing is the fact that at a person's death their wealth will be put in a slush fund. Who will control it? How will you make sure that the person in control of it won't use it for their own ends? How do you know automation will only allow a 2 hour workday? These are questions socialism and communism cannot answer. If you can find practical answers to those questions, you might have a leg to stand on.
Where does it say in the constitution that the government can take your property,yet .private property can be taken by the government for public works projects all the time,it's called Eminent domain! If you don't pay property taxes ,you won't be living on that property any longer.The fact is the only way anyone can "own" ,"not just pay" to have the right to own or lease the land as we do with property taxes is if the land is "patented" The fact is you might own a house or building ,but unless you have sole exclusive right to the land as outlined in "land patient law" where the president signs over a specified section or part of a section of land to you as a sovergn individual ,you will never own the land weather you paid someone for the use of it for the rest of your natual life or not.Patiented land is land that you have in your own name exclusively and have lived on or homesteaded for thirty years and have improved as a result.It is untaxable and untouchable or immune from any leans of any kind or any debt.That's why no one would be willing to lend you any money using it as collateral.because it can never be conficated legally for debt or taxes. Ever ! It can be inherited ,but if no living relative can be found ,it reverts back to the federal government again until someone else starts the patent process over again The way I understand it all you have to pay for is a surveyor and a filing fee.Although it has been said ,that most government land has already been patented.At least that's what the government says .I tend to disbelieve a lot of what they say though.
Your right about it being only practical for an honest citizenery.If they are not honest failure is inevitable.
Sorry Someone, I am with LDT on this. If it walks like a duck... :)
And in your last post I absolutely agree to your analysis.Yet one more time it proves that there is no such thing as god given unalienable rights, and all the rights we have are just a product of mutual agrrement. :)
The Federal government was never supposed to own land. The Northwest Ordnances were not even passed by Congress, they were passed by the government we had under the Articles of Confederation. After the Louisiana Purchase, the government was supposed to hold the land in trust for the American people. As usually happens, the government began financing itself by selling land that didn't belong to it, accustomating people to the idea that the Feds, not the citizenry owned the land. A further blow came with the ideas of eminent domain and the property tax, both of which gained currency during the Progressive era. Those were basically ways to increase the power of government without looking like they were.
Why should we be forced to pay taxes for services we may not even use? Then if you don't pay for unused services, you can have your property confiscated. Sounds like a roundabout way towards elminating all property rights to me.
As for your thought that you could never use homestead land for collateral, you are incorrect. If, in the text of a contract, a landowner puts up his homestead as collateral, it can and should revert to the creditor should the debtor default on the terms of the contract. That's just basic common sense, something we seem to be seeing less and less of in these declining times.
The government actually stole all the remaining land it held in trust for the people of the United States in the 1970's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Land_Policy_a
The government was never meant to own land. When you sanction the theft of someone's property for whatever reason, you've just opened the door to the death of the rule of law. We are either all equal before the law, or none of us are.
None of us are :)
Of course not, we left the rule of law for the rule of the jungle long ago.
But still are trying to live as if we are under rule of law :)
Not me, I'm watiting for the collapse. Then maybe I and those who choose to come with me can live under the rule of law again.
Are you aiming for a leader spot? ;)
Are you kidding I am an anarchist at heart. Being leader is too much work for too much hate. You never please everyone.
Of course I am kidding - but you definitely sounded like you are shooting for it. "I and those who come with me..." :P
I never mentioned the government owning land
I said it would revert back to them to hold until someone else made a claim to it.
I was refering to the federal government in the first instance and local government when refering to eminent domain.
You made no comment about land patents
.The fact is land patents are untouchable when it comes to debt and taxes It cannot be contracted away as you say.
I'm not sure if you would be able to sell it outright for cash.But no one would be able to use it as collateral for a loan
You stated that the land should revert back to the Federal Government. Perhaps you meant that the Feds should hold it in trust, but they were supposed to hold public land in trust until they just claimed it in the 1970's. My point being that you can't trust giving someone something for nothing. If you give Congress the power over something like that, it won't be long until they take it over. That's just human nature.
I found this on wikipedia "Patented land has been transferred to successive owners by warranty deed, quitclaim deed and/or seller-financed land contract, often subject to terms of a mortgage or deed of trust." So in that event, the holder of a contract could make it a provision of that contract that they be make successive owners, the triggering event being default of the loan, rather than the death of the landowner.
In any event, I don't really care about being or not being able to use a homestead as collateral for a loan. If it turns out you can't, great. If you can, then the consequences be on your head. What matters is that there is a mechanism in place to protect yourself and your land from those who would wish to strip if from you. In the end, we have no freedom unless we can be secure in our property. Without that, we are all in various stages of bondage.
Local governments can't have eminent domain any more than the Feds can. Allowing local governments to do so is just asking for the Feds to take that power upon themselves. Which they have and the SCOTUS has allowed it. So much for equal protection under the law. Or governments protecting property rights for that matter.
That's the main reason why I disagree with your post above. There is no provision to protect a person's property. If there is no such provision, then you always live under the threat that you could have everything taken from you at the whim of some government bureaucrat. That's why the protection of a person's property and their right to use it as they wish is so important.
OKAY!
as a matter of fact I don't see having a governing body is bad, infact it is necessary. We always had some form of government to regulate the society, absence of which creates chaos. Think about having a house without the man or lady of the house to run affairs of the house with children or think about having a company without its CEO.
What Misha is talking about is an ideal world where individuals are absolutely neutral thinkers and self motivated. We have to accept that this is a imperfect world and live with its flaws yet work for minimum damage caused by these flaws.
A government is a good government when it takes good care of its people. Yes there are good governments and bad but still people like us are the ones who form the governments; flawed people who make mistakes.
While society has its evil part which can not be gotten rid with as it is the bases of exsistance for goodness (having this universe created on relativity), governments have their evil part too. Not pardoning the evilness governments do with other governments, governments do evilness with their people too. Sometimes in form of bad policies due to short sightedness of the government and sometimes with the intent to favor other policies which result in bad for the people and society overall.
For even reaching for a voluntary system of society we still need to have a form of government we will just have to elect that government with neutral projection. Which is only possible if you have a system of leadership coming in from some other ways than democratic election. But hey ! haven't we tried kingship in human history???
so, we as a human race have come to the conclusion of democracy through trail and error.... we just need to improve it.
Wow, that's so full of inconsistencies, where do I start? First of all, we've only had government since the rise of civilization. While that may suggest government is part and parcel of civilization, I don't believe it. We have government because way back when some people appointed themselves to dispose of the surplus food that farming made possible. That's why you don't have large political organizations with things like hunter-gatherer or nomadic groups.
By the very act of regulation, government sows the seeds of its own destruction. Governments appoints itself the only arbiter of where the surplus goes. Now the people who produce that surplus may have something to say about that. While we no longer judge surplus by food, we now judge surplus according to money. Government takes upon itself the right to decide where the surplus money goes. The problems is government produces nothing. If they didn't take money, nobody would contribute to it. Ever wonder why that is? Given a choice most people would not give government money. So they must not value the supposed "necessity" of government "services". So what you're really doing is restating the governments position on why it should exist without really thinking about it.
Also, how do you improve democracy? You also might want to do some reading up on natural law and think on that some.
ledefensetech!!try to see it from a frame of mind to understand it. I am not getting what your point is, are you totally against having a regulatory body?
government sows the seeds of its own destruction by regulation? HOW?
Yes government is the arbitrator to decide where the surplus should go and we have given that right to the government. Now, one can only debate that surplus money should be utilized wisely and in the interest of the people. Only this thing creates differences of opinion.
Improving democracy! yes you can by regulating the acts of the government; infact system is there but government takes advantage by declaring some issues too sacred to be regulated and that's their escape from regulation.
Natural Law!! let me summarize that it's always "survival of the fittest". We have that in our society but unlike jungle law, in our societies fittest survive in many domains and forms. Taking advantage of being better in something and becoming a better part of society.
Try to take a practical view of scenario rather than theoretical!!
This is a very interesting Hub and the comments section is entertaining.
If we would simply come to understand what our Founding Documents say and do what they say, we could once again have a great country. The States would have much more power; the Supreme Court would no longer create new laws; There would be no Income Tax; most Federal Bureaucracies would be dissolved; Schools would again be under local control of the town in which they are—according to the custom, values and traditions of that particular community; people would have to fend for themselves with the help of their friends and neighbors and charities when times got tough.
I don't think the wheel has to be reinvented. I think we have lost sight of its blueprint. It is a great blueprint.
Um, Zane, you might want to crack a book or two. Natural law talks about several of the philosophies of the Enlightenment. Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859 a couple of centuries after the Enlightenment.
Also you don't consider that since the government itself decides where the surplus goes rather than those who produce the surplus, that lends itself to resentment. Authority always does. It seems to be a purely human weakness that if you give someone power over others, they will abuse it, it is only a matter of time. That's why we have coups and revolutions. It's not about freeing people, it's about getting to be the one to call the shots. The closest we came to breaking that particular cycle was during the American Revolution. We won the war, but lost the peace.
You may also want to read up on the fallacy of circular logic. Your comment on government deciding what is sacred and what isn't is a perfect example. In a way that makes my point. How do you force a government to regulate itself?
Insist on it for one, call them on it for another,make yourself heard would help!
This is a statement from patty inglish,NS from the book called "God is red"
http://hubpages.com/hub/God-is-Red
There are some instances where Native notions of sacred space has tremendous impact on the basic tenets of American democracy. Perhaps the most widely cited instance of this is the case of Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association: the National Forest Service proposed 6 miles of paved roads to open a forest for logging; right through ceremonial and religious sacred space of three Native American Nations. The Court decision implied that recognizing Native rights would imply that the Indians owned federal lands, when they themselves did not believe so. To them, no one can own the land. As a scientist said in the 1960s, "On planet earth there are no passengers. We are all crew."
You can't insist, something, governments have these things called guns and prisons they can throw you in or just shoot you out of hand.
My point exactly lol!
That's the main reason they will try to disarm the people. It takes a while for these things to sink in.When it does watch out.
well I do understand your point ledefensetech but if there is a problem there must be a solution to it. You are posing a problem without indicating any solution for it. Like you said, human weakness is, when given power he abuses it; very right, so why do you want to give power of choice where the surplus should go to masses; when we know that masses are naive by nature.
Law of nature also tells us that human nature is pure by its bases and tends to come to good. This is true with the condition of time attached to it. Human nature is in bases is similar but in individuality is unique hence different length of time attached for every human coming to goodness by itself.
Now, if you focus on this one thing:
we as human race are increasing knowledge as we are traveling on the time line. (to some extent I.Q) the ultimate knowledge attained by all of us will definitely lead us to purity of selves and goodness, but yet again the time is not certain.
So, why not entrust that coming to purity cycle to those who are more knowledgeable; is it not probable for them to attain that state of goodness sooner than the masses in totality?
We need to improve democracy by inducing more philosophy into leaders than politics (though politics is a branch of philosophy but in our modern era we are more focusing on the specifics rather than general). This way there will be a better chance of self awareness of responsibility which comes with power.
Regulation of governments is supposed to be done through Supreme court who must regulate the actions of the government by seeing its actions in the light of constitution.
All books of philosophy will tell you things from the perspective of the philosopher because that is Posteriori, which comes from experience. And our experience is right in front of us.
That human is flawed and needs to be improved in a closed system.
My solution to the problem is to get rid of government.
Ledefensetech, nice solution! But how do we implement it?
Unfortunately, I only see violence as a solution as people never voluntarily give up power.
People need to get involved more if they expect anything to be the way they want it to be ,including oversight of our elected officials ,like the newspaper the "spotlight" which no longer exists.I know It won't happen .Right! Leddefensetech
Hey bro, I would love to have kept up with this, but there just isn't enough time. Great hub.
TMG
"Very Nice Misha!"
"Two thumbs up!"
CEO E.S.A.H.S. Association
Your solution to the problem is far from reality and practicality, you need to get out of old revolution books and see our world has changed.
One writer above said the Supreme Court is there to regulate the Government. UH, no. The Supreme Court is there to decide between two parties who come before it in a dispute about what the law means in a particular case.
It was also said that the human race is progressing as human beings. Not so. Technology is improving. If people were improving there would be plenty of folks writing on the level of a Plato—hell, most people today can't even read it or understand it. People are the same as always. There are no statesmen on earth today to compare with George Washington; no inventors to compare with Thomas Edison; no playwrights to compare with Shakespeare; no composers to compare with Beethoven; no sculptures to compare with Michelangelo; no theologian to compare with St. Augustine; no political writers to compare with Thomas Jefferson; no painters to compare with Rembrandt; and no man comparable with William Wilberforce. Now, we do have a helluva a lot of great X Box players, if that's what you mean by the progression of human beings. :-)
James A. Watkins, it's not necessarily that there are no great writers, composers, thinkers, and artists living in our time -- it's that if they exist, they are not getting recognition. We don't know for sure that this may not have also been true in the past. Perhaps Shakespeare had a contemporary who was an even better playwright, but nobody ever heard of him.
I do agree that the general atmosphere is not favorable to greatness at the moment.
Well, I read the article but did not read all them comments. I think that when it comes to government, I agree that we do need one. But a very small one. Just enough for military and justice to be served. Then we can all go about our own business, of helping one another. Taking care of our own Business's, trading and bargaining. We could all pitch in to take care of our own towns, counties, you namke it. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
Well, as I stated already, I would rather have none, but this is impossible, cause I am in a vast minority. :) The main problem that I see with government is its tendency to grow and eventually grasp everything under its control. America made a decent attempt to make it differently, and failed, too... hence the idea in this hub. :)
It would be wonderful, to live in a complete free world, were no one needs to lock there doors, and everyone is free to choose, what they will do and won't do. I see it in my mind. But I can't see it here on Earth, because we have those who think they know it all.(And I don't blame them, I come from along line of know it all s, I think my mom said somewhere back in 600bc....lol. But seriously I do come from a line of know it all s. And I can say now I am no longer in bondage to that.) But it is nice to think about a free world, no government concept. Who knows what tomorrow may bring, thank god we can dream of a better tomorrow. thanks
I had one crazy thought and let my local gov't official know about it, I suggested to him that the gov't rotate with the people. High taxes one year, low taxes the next. Is that nuts or what? What would people think of that? I thought it was a awesome idea, lol but in reality, would never happen. :(
Misha (very nice name by the way), stupid of me, I hadn't discovered your hubs 1 or 2 days ago when I was desperately in need of interesting things to read. Happy that I've found them today. Outstanding really, very good hubs. It will be all right now for me if I don't read anything else for 10 days. P.S. You look like an incredible guy, how do you find time to write all these things? Many thanks and congratultions.
I am not really a "politic person" (LOL) but as much as I don't trust the government, I don't trust people as well to be capable of living without somebody to govern them. I mean if all people are like you and me (LOL) maybe that is possible.
"You do, and I do, albeit very reluctantly."
You're catching on Misha, great!
I am an anarchist, I don't deal with politics. I don't pay taxes, and I don't step on people's feet. I've never been to jail, and never will be.
I play with those who want to play with me, otherwise I get out of the sandbox before sand gets thrown at my eyes. ;)
Oh yeah Goodfriend, we can dream of better tomorrow - but we better keep it in dreams I think. Dreams becoming true in the area of state mechanics somehow require a lot of blood to oil the wheels...
Yeah Dame, this might have something to it. Yet the most likely outcome is they will run a high tax year and then find compelling reasons not to switch to low tax :D
Seaside, thanks for visiting and good words :)
Body, I think I would trust them. Watching my kids I see that people while being very different are born as loving and curious creatures. Yet we (parents and society) are bringing them up in fear and hate, and they (us) adopt it... vicious cycle really, unbreakable...
oscillation, I did not pay taxes for a big part of my active life, but my current situation is either pay or go to jail. I don't want my kids to grow without a dad. :)
Misha:
I understand, I wish you luck. I would not want their kids to be without such a great man, either. ;)
Thank you, and good luck back at you :)
It is very deep for me Misha but still not deep enough to know I think its bonza!!!
LOL Deb, what is bonza? And thanks for coming, can I make you some coffee? )
Misha- Did you clarify whether this was an accounting or technical error? More ever I am sure there would be tax lawyers who would contest your case successfully. If it is a honest mistake, then yes even "Verizon" makes mistakes so does the government. I think the difference lies in the fact that we can switch with whom we do our business much more quickly compared to the government.
And to a certain extent you are right. The government always tends to legislate business but small businesses don't have similar clout against government unlike Big businesses like Oil or Military.
Thumbs up for an excellent perspective. :D
Hi CW-girl, thanks for stopping by :)
Oh, I know where the error is, don;t worry. But I pay an accountant to do my taxes, so this is his job to sort this out. I put this here just as an example of government inefficiency :)
And of course switching the government is a bit more complex than switching a phone provider, but some people do attempt revolutions, too :)
I know Someone. :) But I don't want to dedicate my life to fighting American government, which I am not even a citizen of. I have more enjoyable things to do. :)
I'm sorry I didn't come across this sooner Misha. The Celtic Irish lived as an Anarchist society for about a 1000 years from the 7th century to the 17th century. In addition, Iceland existed as a free market Anarchist society for over three-hundred years roughly between 930 and 1260.
Those two examples are by far the longest in duration and in the minority as societies that were intentionally set up to be Anarchist in nature, rather than just the result of government being unavailable. However, there have been quite a few historical examples of self governed communities most of which have been far more efficient, prosperous, and peaceful than their statist counterparts.
It sounds like some Anarchists have something in common with the natural law party
Misha, I think I have a solution. I've written a hub called
"What Socialists Want--and How the Free Market Might Provide It!" and I put in a link to your anarchy hub.
Kelly, thanks for your examples, I am off to researching them. :)
Someone, I think your observation has grounds. In my understanding, real anarchy is pretty much about letting nature do its job, without stupid human interference. :)
Aya, I am of to reading it, even before making research on Celts :)
Great read, Misha.
As a Libertarian, I agree that some form of social representation is needed to address limited functions to assist self-government. Government, as a body of citizens banded together to protect the rights of the individual, is a true need. But what we have now is just a monstrosity! For the record, I'm aligned with Thomas Jefferson on most points of government.
You wrote "All of them use involuntary recurring payments from their citizens to put money in the coffers". Indeed! And from what I can tell, within the Constitution it only references profits by corporations as taxable... not individual labor! Then came the amendment to tax income -- what a heist!
Hi ES, thanks for stopping by. :)
I am not that sure it is needed, yet I do see that others don't want to live withput it, so I don't really have much choice here other than to try to make it the least harmful to me. :)
Another very insightfil hub Misha, I always enjoy your hubs.
If you realy want to hear about anarchy and people taking over the government go to www.infowars.com This guy Alex Jones is very crazy, but it is interesting to hear what they say, although most of it just makes me laugh because they are so radical. According to them everything is a government conspiracy...I just don't believe that...LOL!
So happy you flew into the hut, so good luck to land in your side, so that the well-being is often associated with you, let your heart flow wishful
Magnoliazz, I think I declare this day a holiday - you commented on two of my hubs! :)
I will take a look, thank you. Not that I am a big fun of conspiracy theories either, we are on the same page here. :)
Kisszzl, you puzzled me beyond imagination - WTF did you mean?
Misha,
If you ever figure out how to accomplish this theoretical dream, let us know. Am sure there would be many who would climb on board with you.
I realize that you are for NO government, period.
I would wish that more people would pay attention to what our Founding Fathers had in mind with the Constitution. A lean government at the top with more power to the States and even greater power to the local governments was the original idea.
This is FAR from the direction that we are headed in the U.S. right now with so many people actually EMPLOYED by the federal government and the government taking over more and more of what used to be private concerns.
PRIOR TO WELFARE being institutionalized by government, people were helped by families, churches, local communities, etc. The needs were actually known to be legitimate (or not) and addressed as such.
The BIG AMORPHOUS GOVERNMENT that cannot intimately KNOW the needs of people on a local level cannot EVER address the needs as well. They just take money from everyone and give a little back to the States where it gets re-distributed to the local people (all the while some of it disappearing because of employees salaries or other "costs".)
Too many people profit from the way things are today. To change that (REAL CHANGE) not the change today that is GROWING government at an accelerated pace would take determination, hard work and involvement of people who truly understand the long term ramifications of where we are currently headed.
While the entitlement group is happy with the way things are going...I am hopeful that more people are waking up and will take the time to vote the next time we have elections.
Sooner or later, going into debt and printing more money will no longer work when addressing issues whether it is infrastructure, homeland security, medical care or anything else.
So, Misha, since you have already admitted that your anarchy dream is probably not feasible, how about working towards LESS GOVERNMENT instead. Oh...and LESS TAXES! There is a point of diminishing returns and (in my opinion) we are there.
Thought provoking hub!
excellent hub! wow. ok, I want that anarchy t-shirt...
Ah Peggy, yeah, i wish we could have a life without government. But since we don't seem to be able to sustain such a life on any significant scale, minimizing the government (and of course taxes) is what we agree on... :)
Hi Cosette, this might be a good idea, let me see if i can get one for you :)
Hi,
I would not define myself as an advocate of anarchy; however, I definately do not like playing by established rules, and believe many laws are present to help wealthy organizations get richer (example: auto insurance requirments), and that many regular and routine requirements are punishing to the poor.
I suppose no government or organization can be completely fair, even if it attempts to be, but I do believe that the power involved has always been heavily loaded in the corner of those who already have it, and that it is continually programmed to keep the same people in control, and with all the luxuries and benefits they already enjoy. You mentioned Obama, but the only reason he causes more anger than anyone else, is because he belongs to a social group that has not been allowed to have as much power in the past, and many white people do not want that to change. His programs are not any more socialistic than FDR's were, and he is certianly not as close to a dictator in his actions as George Bush was.
That said, I become annoyed at all programmed thinking attempts, even when they are promotiing positive causes, because I believe people need to think for themselves. I am defiinately for civil rights, human rights, and animal rights; however, there is too much media induced programmed thinking involved in all three cases, and certian words cannot even be uttered publicly without fear of losing one's job, or destroying one's reputation. This is not actually the government, but the press, and some kind of censureship effort that has gone wild. One more question, why is it any worse to use the N word (which I would never do, anyway), than it is to refer to people as "trailer park trash?" I do not refer to people using expressions such as "white trash," or other expressions that are preprogrammed opinions society and the press have decided I should have. The far left have theirs; the far right have theirs. I don't need anybody else to tell me how or what to think, thank you. If that is being an anarchist, well, maybe I am one to an extent, though I don't advocate the total lack of any governmental structure. V
Well, Misha, somehow I missed this Hub and hope that up till now you solved your problem.
Off shore company would be good solution for the future...
Oh Valeri, I really don't know where to start - I seem to see so many points I disagree to you. Why don't I state those I do agree to, though? :) I do think people are better off thinking for themselves. I do think political correctness gone way too far. I do think government can't be "fair". Umm, looks like it's more or less it LOL. But I do see where are you coming from, and I do see you think for yourself, so we will get along :)
Hi Tanechka, thanks for stopping by and advice. I was thinking about off-shore, but it did not really fit my particular situation. As for that particular government blopper though, i think it is solved, at least I did not hear from them since my accountant sent them a letter. :)
Funny hub, Misha :-)
Hi LL, thanks for stopping by. :)
[I've got a brain ache mulling over your post]
On paper/screen this almost seems feasible, then I can't help thinking we'll all be over taken by land dwelling pirates and forced to choose between 'the Bounty' with eventual mutiny or the pirates plank... or is that where we are already - oh gosh, here I go again.
Hi Steff. I see, you prolly got a brain ache even before the first sentence. :)
Hey, I resemble that comment!
Lovely job Misha... anything that gets ppl talking & THINKING about these issues is a good thing.
I thought you and your readers here might be interested in these people, who are waging their own war against the tax system... http://www.peacetaxseven.com
Hope you are better now Steff :)
Hi Loubeeloo, thanks, I took a look. While it is less radical a bit, I think it is definitely a step in the right direction. :)
If there was Anarchy everyone would be getting robbed, woman would be getting raped left right and centre, there would be free reign for junkies and good people would have to turn into violent vigilantes to keep order.
Oh no, people like you would pretty soon kill each other, and others would live happily thereafter :)
I see I'm a late comer to this blog. Every day I pick a hub of someone I haven't read it, and read them. Today, Misha, I landed on your site. This is the first article I picked.
I am of mixed mind on this subject. I think it's one of those ideas that sounds good, but probably wouldn't work with human nature being what it is. Most people, no matter how fed up they are with their government, prefer it to the chaos we'd surely suffer without it. Law and order seems to be the one thing people cling to, and with good reason.
I'm also a late comer to this hub. It's a great notion and I've often toyed with the idea of Anarchy as a solution. The benefits are plain to see. For example;
Under total Anarchy where there would be no laws then there would be no law against molesting a child. However there would also be no law against tearing that molester into tiny pieces.
I can't help thinking, wouldn't that be a better deterrent than anything we have at present? If I could shoot someone for cutting in line, wouldn't we have a polite, well mannered society? Interesting thoughts. In the Anarchy school system the teacher would ask the students;
"If a man bought an apple for 10 cents and sold it for 20 cents, what would he get?"
The correct answer then would be "A bloody good hiding."
I like the idea.
Thanks for coming guys. :)
Lmmartin, reading the hub itself, not only a title, would probably help to understand the idea better, and not to fight a straw man. :)
IantoPF, I do relate to your first couple of points, but you lost me altogether on the last one. It is not anarchism, it is socialism you are talking about here. :)
Nothing about Anarchism precludes people from creating laws within a society, nor does government do a very good job of preventing chaos. In fact, their self-centered interests more often promote lawlessness and violence.
BTW Misha, according to the government, taxes are already voluntary: http://eyeam4anarchy.blogspot.com/2009/02/are-taxe
I am with you! I have been canning pizza and learning how to prolong the shelf life of Doritos in preparation.
Anarchism gives satisfaction of being rebel, alright. Can there be any chance of building a better society through anarchism? Don't think that I am pushing somewhere...just asking for your opinion.
LOL Misha you are quite right. I was extrapolating and having a little fun with the subject. Yes that last point is a socialist one. I have had some interesting conversations with those people who believe that the logical extension of socialism is anarchy. Any thoughts on that yourself?
Hello Misha,
I enjoyed reading this, and I believe your idea has merit. Charity in place of taxes, and basically it is us deciding budgets and public projects rather than the elected bureaucrats who mostly only claim to have our interests at heart while they find a way to get their friends rich and avoid paying taxes themselves!
He-he Eye, sure thing they are, if government says so. :)
Hey Funnebone, long time my friend. I hope you survive it, as well as me, and then we'll have our last laugh. ;)
Adnan, taking the idea in isolation, I would say yes, you can build way better society without a government. The problem is, so far any governmentless society sooner or later got its government, and all the horror started again...
IantoPF, actually I was surprised to relearn recently that anarchism and socialism were pretty close in my own country. But after bolsheviks came to power, any anarchist that is a socialist at the same time is a fake anarchist to me. :)
Hi Jeffrey, and thanks for your good words. Now, the question is - how do we implement it? This is what bothers me lately...
Very interesting hub Misha. Did you know that, technically, paying income taxes in the US is already voluntary? However, if you try that, the courts will throw you in jail, even though they have no constitutional law to back them up. Might makes right, as they say. :)
Hi MadameX, glad you stopped by. :) Yeah, somebody told me that already, and my response was exactly - did you try it and still not in jail? :D
Hmm, it only takes one bad apple to get everyone thinking that things weren't so bad in the 'Government seeing to our safety' days. Anarchy is only as good as it's weakest link. And, somebody will have to be 'appointed' to oversee the community's physical and material contributions anyhow. Sigh. Great hub though, Misha. Thank you. :-)
Mish-Mosh,
A friend of mine predicted this about 5 years ago. Now he's trying to stop it by running for the Senate in 2012.
He told me to buy guns 5 years ago. He grew up very Liberal, father was the behind the scenes guy that elected a Liberal governor. The gov eventually went to jail.
Hello Misha,
This is another great hub (loved the one about “your democracy beats mine”). Since we can’t get rid of the government the idea of treating it as a charity and pay according to their performance is BRILLIANT.
I would love to do that and I am sure that will make any government a much more efficient one.
People have an obsession about taxes and nobody likes the idea to give part of their money; neither do I, whoever what makes me laugh (or rather cry) is the constant talk of many Americans who consider themselves lucky because they are being taxed a lot less than the Scandinavian countries will tax their citizens.
Do you have any hope those people will ever understand that Americans are paying the highest taxes in the world? Even if we pay just $100 and get nothing in return it is too expensive. What do we get for paying up to 50% in taxes (in my case just 28%, but still)?
What do we get for our “low” taxes? Great freeways, some police and fire department protection, totally inadequate school and healthcare system, a postal service that is deplorable, a social security pension (that we have made contributions for so it is not exactly “compliments of the government”) and perpetual welfare for the ones who will rather not work.
Scandinavians may pay up to 80% or maybe even more, but they have everything provided for by their government; from excellent health insurance (including maternity leave) to job security and long paid vacations, good schools, pension plans and everything else that give people piece of mind and makes their lives less stressful.
The only way to look at cost is by taking into account value. Maybe you should write a hub about that.
P.S. I like your very realistic perspective on the forums. When you are not totally laconic, you make a lot of sense.
Hi Petra, I am glad you liked it. You are one of the few people around who can understand where I am coming from. :)
And yes, American taxes are ridiculous - but I don't think Europe and especially Scandinavia are any better in this regard. Yes, the services they provide may be better than American counterparts, but the total amount of taxes is even more ridiculous than in USA, and it is still no match to the quality that unrestricted free market would have provided.
Also, all those countries are in terrible financial shape now, exactly because of spending too much on government projects. Their flagship Iceland is already bankrupt, the rest can follow the suit any day...
Not that the USA is not hit by this crisis, but looks like the major hit is doing to happen in Europe. :)
mirglof says:
7 months ago
Wow! I find this to be very simular with my own thoughts, I have often wondered if every one would be better if all goverment collapsed and we get build a new one all over again. However I think that anarchy usually is just the facade of despotism