Minimum Wage Rise Will Cause The Moon To Fall From The Sky

[TGP]

So you say that because you get born where a bunch of people decide to buy nukes, when you reach the age of 16 and never once implicitly or explicitly ask for nukes to be bought, you assume the right to chuck me out of the country to which you have no greater claim to reside in than me simply because I don't want to be part of your scheme?

Yes and no. Yes in that you've got the result broadly right. No in that you've misdescribed the process in several important respects.

For a start......

I will not throw you out. The people whowill are the officers charged with that responsibility by the government democratically elected by all the people. It has nothing to do with me. It is something we all, collectively, agree to by residing in this territory.

Just as we agree "if we murder, men with guns will put us in jail" by being in this territory.

For second.......

I do have a greater claim to reside in that territory than you do (in this circumstance) ...... because residence in that territory comes with services supplied to all residents........ and I am paying for my share of those services (whether I want them or not) and you are not paying for your share of those services (whether you want them or not).

Whatsmore. Residence in that territory comes with an implicit contract. I am not in breach of mine. You are in breach of yours (in the circumstance where you fail to pay your taxes).

My rights stem from my willingness to accept the contract, your lack of rights in this circumstance stem from your rejection of your part of that contract.

For a third........

The matter of whether we have nukes was settled by a democratic vote. By continuing to reside in this territory post-16 you implicitly agree to abide by the results of those votes. Whteher you voted or not. It is breach of this implicit contract for which you are being thrown out.... just as if you'd breached it by (say) murder. You did not have to accept it, you could leave at 16. In fact you do not have to accept it today, you could leave tommorrow. Staying is implicit acceptance of that contract........just as staying is implicit acceptance of a contract not to murder which would be dealt with in a similar way if breached.

For a fourth....

We aren't really talking about you being chucked out. You can leave of your own free will, and implicitly reject the contract. Or stay, implicitly accepting the contract, and go to jail for non payment of the contract (if that is also what you so choose)

Finally......

You have no right to reside here in any form UNLESS you accept that contract and it's rules. Your "right" to reside here is dependent on acceptance of that contract. If you breach it........by murdering say...... you will find your "right" to your own freedom is rescinded as a response. Thats true whether you ever explicitly agreed not to murder or not. Whether you consider "freedom" an inalianable right or not. Residence consituted implicit agreement, breach of that agreement confers a penalty that includes the rescsinding of your right to freedom.

This is easy to miss........ because people don't usually go to these absurd lengths........but it is true none the less. Your "rights" are contingent on keeping that contract. Particularly your right to freedom. Break that implicit contract, and get caught doing so, and rights will be rescinded on that basis. Most notably the right to freedom, you will go to jail.

I hope thats sufficiently clear.

I take it if I refused to get on the boat there would be guns pointed into my back.

Or refuse to accept the verdict of the court and go to jail ? Yes.

Like I said before, you're seriously dangerous. I've not seen anyone on here so enthusiatically embrace the options of intolerance, coercion and violence.

I am not enthusiastiocally embracing it. I have no wish to see violence done to you. I will try every avenue and recourse possible to attempt to get you to uphold your part of the contract short of violence first. As, incidentally, will the state (the person with the guns, who is not me).

They will warn you. They will attempt to make accomodations. They may grant exemptions. They will give you grace periods. They will give you a fair trial to ensure you are doing what they say you are doing. They will offer penalties less harsh than prison. They will then attempt to restrict your freedom (prison). They will do ALL THIS before they whip out the guns.

HOWEVER if you persist through EVERY level and refuse all other options at EVERY turn (refuse to pay the taxes, refuse any accomodation offered, refuse to repay the amount with interest after an investigation, refuse to attend the court, refuse to pay the fine, refuse to go to jail for non payment of the fine) then at some point a gun will be pointed at you, yes.

I ABSOLUETLY beleive you should be given every chance. That the trial must be as fair as we can make it. That you be given every chance possible to come to an accomodation short of violence.

I just DO NOT beleive that if we try all that........ and you resist through all those options........ we should just shrug our shoulders and say "Fine, breach the contract how you wish then. You are free to go".

We wouldn't do so for breach of another contract......... like an act as simple as stealing a kettle........... and I see no reason to exempt you because you are attempting to breach a contract in the same way for far more money than that.

It is regrettable that some humans force it to this pass. But they do.

I notice.......... that you and every opther poster here take an option short of that violence. Most by simple payment of their taxes. That is in every way the preferred solution. Just because me, you, and almost everyone else prefers that.........it does not mean that the man with the gun is not there. My recognition of that fact should not be construed as me liking it, or me gleefully enjoying it, or me being desperate to use him at every opportunity. It is just a statement of fact.

Yours,

TGP

[Injin]

And this arrangement would be enforced by whom?

The natural consequences of ignoring it.

Don't steal and find something else productive to do - happiness.

Steal - misery all around.

[Injin]

TGP I don't owe you anything unless I specifically agree beforehand.

Get over it.

[TGP]

I see no contract, show it to me.

Because you see no signed contract at the parking space......does that mean there is not one when you park in a space ?

So long as they took sufficient opportunity to warn you that parking came with a fee, the fact you park constitutes implicit acceptance of that contract. Failure to pay will (ultimately, and after the offer of several other ways out which you must refuse) result in force being applied.

Anyway, I'm not paying myself an income, I'm exchanging a thing I own for another thing. Does owning a thing imply a contract?

Ah.....well if this is all going on for barter, then possibly not. The law doesn't levy a tax on barter.

On the other hand...... if you are exchanging it for cash....... in such a way as the implicit societal contract specifies is taxable.... then there is a contract.

Again, show me the contract or it doesn't exist.

When you walk out of currys with the kettle......... can you deny you are stealing by saying "Show me the contract where I agreed to pay for this kettle" ? No.

Some contracts are implicit and are not in visible written down form. That does not mean they do not exist. As you will find when you leave curry's with a kettle without paying for it.

Yes, the initiation of force is when someone took the kettle without paying. Otherwise it would have been a consensual exchange!

Fine, then the initiation of force is when you (say) buy a house without paying stamp duty in exactly the same manner.

Here, when I sold the goods it was another consensual exchange. The only contract was between me and the person with whom I exchanged the goods. There is no other contract and no force involved ... until the government comes along a demands a cut. It was a free exchange without force until the government arrived.

No it was not. You live in a geographical area. Within that area there are certain acts that constitute an implicit contract with the govt. to pay them taxes. You have been informed of those circumstances.

Just as you have been informed that parking in that space constitutes a contract to pay....... and so it does....... as long as you have been fairly informed.

You can;'t say "But I was just parking here until the car parking company came along out of nowhere and started using violence to extract money". You can't say the same with taxes either.

I didn't try to tell you the failure to keep an implicit contract was the start of the use of force. I think you misunderstood me when I mention taking the kettle - it was clear that I was referring to taking the kettle without paying.

Yes, and buying a house without paying the stamp duty would be the counter example of you "initiating force" in the same way you claim "taking the kettle without payment" is instituting force.

You WERE aware of the implicit contract that if youpicked up the kettle on a shelf in curry's you had to pay currys for it if you left the shop with it in your hand, yes ?

You WERE aware of the implicit contract that if you bought a house you had to pay stamp duty on it, yes ?

In both cases....... failure to honour the implicit contract is (in your eyes) an initiation of force. You were aware of BOTH contracts. You engaged in BOTH activities in any case.

That is the initiation of force. Buying a kettle (rather than taking it) is a voluntary exchange - no force involved. There is no implicit contract in buying a kettle - one thing is exchanged for another, end of matter.

No. I wasn't talking of the act of purchasing the kettle. You walked out the door without paying for it.

Essentially, the implicit contract you created when walking in the stopre was "If I pick up anything here I will pay an acceptable price for it before I leave with it in my hand". The payment is the settling of that contract. Walking out the door without doing so is it's breach.

This is analagous to a similar implicit contract you undertake to pay the govt. when you purchase a house. You are aware that the contract exists before the act. You commit the act, invoking the contract. Any force afterwards will only be applied if you fail to complete the end of that contract.

A bold claim to say that it is moral. On what principles do you make this claim?

On the same basis that it is moral to use force to stop a thief.

Society has agreed an implicit contract between all it's members. Being within a geographical area is implicit acceptance of that contract. Breach it's terms and force may be applied.

If you breach it's terms by theiving....... they will force you into jail (ultimately, and after offering several "outs" in most cases).

If you breach it's terms by failure to pay taxes....... they will force you to jail (ultimately, and after offering several "outs" in most cases).

If you do not beleive this is a contract defined by geographical area........... try smoking a joint in front of a police officer in London........ and in Amsterdam.......... the differences in the implicit contracts you agree to by being resident in those geographic areas will affect how you are treated.

In one it is a breach of the implicit contract, in the other it is not. This is true whether you ever signed anything or not.

As you can see........ the contracts vary by area......... and they are implicitly accepted by you upon entry into that area.

BOTH areas enforce similar penalties for breach of the taxation parts of the contract.

Yours,

TGP

[Injin]

Because you see no signed contract at the parking space......does that mean there is not one when you park in a space ?

Yep - it's extortionists claiming there is a contract, that's all.

No one owes anybody anything unless they specificalyl agree.

Nothing else makes any sense.

[TGP]

TGP I don't owe you anything unless I specifically agree beforehand.

Get over it.

I agree. I am not asking you to pay me for anything.

The government will; ask you to pay taxes if you purchase a house........... but that is not me asking, it is the government........ and the act of purchasing a house constitutes an implicit contract to pay them that tax.

Is this what you say at the parking at your local town centre ?

You park........ and then when you attempt to leave you cannot get past the barrier......... when the man comes out you yell at him "raise the barrier, you are restricting my freedom" and when he says "Pay, you neterred an implicit contract to do so" you reply "I signed NOTHING".

Do you think he will raise the barrier ? Or do you think if you persist you will eventually go to jail (gun in the face) ?

Your willingness to pay indicates you are well aware what an implicit contract is.

You are trying to pretend to me now you do not know or understand. Such disingeniousness is beneath you.

Yours,

TGP

[Injin]

I agree. I am not asking you to pay me for anything.

The government will; ask you to pay taxes if you purchase a house........... but that is not me asking, it is the government........ and the act of purchasing a house constitutes an implicit contract to pay them that tax.

Nope. Some individual in a bad suit will demand I do things for him or he will arrange for me to be hurt. That's all a government is.

Is this what you say at the parking at your local town centre ?

You park........ and then when you attempt to leave you cannot get past the barrier......... when the man comes out you yell at him "raise the barrier, you are restricting my freedom" and when he says "Pay, you neterred an implicit contract to do so" you reply "I signed NOTHING".

nope. I pay, It's not a contract tho - it's just easier to pay the exortionist than argue the toss.

You are arguing that if you stop struggling mid rape it becomes making love here, it's untenable as a position, intellecutally or morally.

Do you think he will raise the barrier ? Or do you think if you persist you will eventually go to jail (gun in the face) ?

Your willingness to pay indicates you are well aware what an implicit contract is.

No, it indicates I know I am outgunned.

You are trying to pretend to me now you do not know or understand. Such disingeniousness is beneath you.

Yours,

TGP

You are trying to turn a mugging into a contract breach rather than just call it a mugging - it's pathetic.

Knock it off.

I don't owe anyone anything, nor does anyone owe me anything unless I (and they) agree.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Injin

[pootle]

Yes and no. Yes in that you've got the result broadly right. No in that you've misdescribed the process in several important respects.

For a start......

I will not throw you out. The people whowill are the officers charged with that responsibility by the government democratically elected by all the people. It has nothing to do with me. It is something we all, collectively, agree to by residing in this territory.

Just as we agree "if we murder, men with guns will put us in jail" by being in this territory.

But murder is the initiation of force! You would have him thrown out for doing nothing!

...and nice shifting of the blame ... "I elected these people but refuse to accept the responsibility"

For second.......

I do have a greater claim to reside in that territory than you do (in this circumstance) ...... because residence in that territory comes with services supplied to all residents........ and I am paying for my share of those services (whether I want them or not) and you are not paying for your share of those services (whether you want them or not).

If you hold that line to be true then those on benefits, who do not pay any share, have no right to live in the territory either.

Whatsmore. Residence in that territory comes with an implicit contract. I am not in breach of mine. You are in breach of yours (in the circumstance where you fail to pay your taxes).

There is no implicit contract. None! It doesn't exist.

My rights stem from my willingness to accept the contract, your lack of rights in this circumstance stem from your rejection of your part of that contract.

Your rights do not stem from a (non-existent) contract.

For a third........

The matter of whether we have nukes was settled by a democratic vote. By continuing to reside in this territory post-16 you implicitly agree to abide by the results of those votes. Whteher you voted or not. It is breach of this implicit contract for which you are being thrown out.... just as if you'd breached it by (say) murder. You did not have to accept it, you could leave at 16. In fact you do not have to accept it today, you could leave tommorrow. Staying is implicit acceptance of that contract........just as staying is implicit acceptance of a contract not to murder which would be dealt with in a similar way if breached.

NOBODY has ever asked me if I want nukes in this country or not. NOBODY! All you are doing by following this line of argument is showing what a shower of shite "democracy" is in this country. As for implicit acceptance of a mythical contract. I still haven't seen it and I certainly haven't agreed to it.

For a fourth....

We aren't really talking about you being chucked out. You can leave of your own free will, and implicitly reject the contract. Or stay, implicitly accepting the contract, and go to jail for non payment of the contract (if that is also what you so choose)

Finally......

You have no right to reside here in any form UNLESS you accept that contract and it's rules. Your "right" to reside here is dependent on acceptance of that contract. If you breach it........by murdering say...... you will find your "right" to your own freedom is rescinded as a response. Thats true whether you ever explicitly agreed not to murder or not. Whether you consider "freedom" an inalianable right or not. Residence consituted implicit agreement, breach of that agreement confers a penalty that includes the rescsinding of your right to freedom.

This is easy to miss........ because people don't usually go to these absurd lengths........but it is true none the less. Your "rights" are contingent on keeping that contract. Particularly your right to freedom. Break that implicit contract, and get caught doing so, and rights will be rescinded on that basis. Most notably the right to freedom, you will go to jail.

I hope thats sufficiently clear.

You keep conflating an initiation of force (murder) with complete inaction (ignoring a non existent contract).

Or refuse to accept the verdict of the court and go to jail ? Yes.

I am not enthusiastiocally embracing it. I have no wish to see violence done to you. I will try every avenue and recourse possible to attempt to get you to uphold your part of the contract short of violence first. As, incidentally, will the state (the person with the guns, who is not me).

They will warn you. They will attempt to make accomodations. They may grant exemptions. They will give you grace periods. They will give you a fair trial to ensure you are doing what they say you are doing. They will offer penalties less harsh than prison. They will then attempt to restrict your freedom (prison). They will do ALL THIS before they whip out the guns.

HOWEVER if you persist through EVERY level and refuse all other options at EVERY turn (refuse to pay the taxes, refuse any accomodation offered, refuse to repay the amount with interest after an investigation, refuse to attend the court, refuse to pay the fine, refuse to go to jail for non payment of the fine) then at some point a gun will be pointed at you, yes.

I ABSOLUETLY beleive you should be given every chance. That the trial must be as fair as we can make it. That you be given every chance possible to come to an accomodation short of violence.

I just DO NOT beleive that if we try all that........ and you resist through all those options........ we should just shrug our shoulders and say "Fine, breach the contract how you wish then. You are free to go".

We wouldn't do so for breach of another contract......... like an act as simple as stealing a kettle........... and I see no reason to exempt you because you are attempting to breach a contract in the same way for far more money than that.

It is regrettable that some humans force it to this pass. But they do.

I notice.......... that you and every opther poster here take an option short of that violence. Most by simple payment of their taxes. That is in every way the preferred solution. Just because me, you, and almost everyone else prefers that.........it does not mean that the man with the gun is not there. My recognition of that fact should not be construed as me liking it, or me gleefully enjoying it, or me being desperate to use him at every opportunity. It is just a statement of fact.

Yours,

TGP

The humans that force it to the pass are the ones who seek to control the other humans for their own ends, not the humans who want to live peaceably side-by-side with their neighbours.

Edited March 26, 2010 by pootle

[TGP]

Yep - it's extortionists claiming there is a contract, that's all.

No one owes anybody anything unless they specificalyl agree.

Nothing else makes any sense.

So when youwalk out of Curry's with a kettle.......... having siogned no contract agreeing to pay for that kettle if you did so......... then that is not a theft ?

Where is your written contract stating that you would pay for that kettle ? There isn't one. Only an implicit contract that certain acts constitute transferrence of wonership of the kettle. Walking out the door with it in your hand is one of those acts.

If you DID walk out of curry's without paying for that kettle........ would the lack of any written contract to pay mean you had not stolen it ?

If I walk into Injins house....... and pick up YOUR kettle......... and walk off with it, can I clain that thius is not theft because I never signed any contract agreeing to pay you for the kettle ?

Yours,

TGP

[Injin]

So when youwalk out of Curry's with a kettle.......... having siogned no contract agreeing to pay for that kettle if you did so......... then that is not a theft ?

No, it's an implied contract - by allowing you through the door you are allowed to take what you want.

Where is your written contract stating that you would pay for that kettle ? There isn't one. Only an implicit contract that certain acts constitute transferrence of wonership of the kettle. Walking out the door with it in your hand is one of those acts.

It is an implied contract - by merely being in the same universe as me the owe me everything they have - it's all written right there in the implied contract.

If you DID walk out of curry's without paying for that kettle........ would the lack of any written contract to pay mean you had not stolen it ?

No mate, no - the lack of a written contract proves it's my kettle.

If I walk into Injins house....... and pick up YOUR kettle......... and walk off with it, can I clain that thius is not theft because I never signed any contract agreeing to pay you for the kettle ?

Yours,

TGP

I suspect you'd be more bothered about the dogs attached to your nads if you tried that, but claim away.

heres a hint - it's theft because you don't have a contract.

[TGP]

But murder is the initiation of force! You would have him thrown out for doing nothing!

Oi Vey. Yes murder is the direct application of force.

Perhaps I should have used another example........fraud ? theft ?

The point is that by residing in the UK you implicitly agree to the UK's rules. These include rules on all sorts of things, including taxation.

...and nice shifting of the blame ... "I elected these people but refuse to accept the responsibility"

As it happens I didn't. I voted Lib-Dem......... but it's immaterial.

YOU are as responsible for their actions as I am, residing in the UK........ we are ALL responsible.

However, that does not mean "I am doing this"....... the agent is the government, not me.

If you hold that line to be true then those on benefits, who do not pay any share, have no right to live in the territory either.

We are generous in that we allow people to do so in some circumstances. These people have been careful to work within the rules of those circumstances. Injin has not.

Thats not particularly fair........ but sometimes being generous requires that you not be fair.

There is no implicit contract. None! It doesn't exist.

Say that all you like. It does not matter.

If I say "I have a right to free jam sandwiches" I can say it till I am blue in the face, it will not get me free jam sandwiches.

What counts is NOT what you beleive......... but what society has agreed........ and societies ability to make it stick.

You pay your taxes, like everyone else. Despite your protestations, they have made it stick. It therefore exists.

If people agreed amongst themselves that everybody had a right to free jam sandwiches....... and made it stick....... that right WOULD exist. Whether I "beleiveed it did" or not. That could be demonstrated by me asking for a jam sandwich and receiving one free of charge whenever I asked.

Your rights do not stem from a (non-existent) contract.

They do. Breach that contract...... persist in doing so........ and see how fast your right to "freedom" is removed by placing you in a little tiny room.

Your right to "freedom" is dependent on you keeping that contract. When you breach it, it will be removed.

Whatsmore....... this is perfectly moral........ Do YOU beleive that murderers should have their full right to freedom ? Or do you beleive they should have it restricted based on their breaching of the implicit contract not to murder ? Would you REALLY say "Oh, look. If the murderer refuses to go to jail there is little we can do about it. He has a right to freedom. That cannot be taqken away, it is his right." ?

NOBODY has ever asked me if I want nukes in this country or not. NOBODY! All you are doing by following this line of argument is showing what a shower of shite "democracy" is in this country. As for implicit acceptance of a mythical contract. I still haven't seen it and I certainly haven't agreed to it.

The contract does not specify they have to ask you.

The contract only specifies that you must pay for it........ and in return receive it's protection.

You can reject that contract, by leaving the area protected.......... or you can stay and implictly accept it.

You also have the right to argue against it, vote against it, do many other things to change the status quo........ however, you ARE bound to accept the democratic results whether you agree with them or not. At least, while you remain in this geographic area.

You keep conflating an initiation of force (murder) with complete inaction (ignoring a non existent contract).

No..... I am conflating one breach of the implicit contract (Clause X. All residents of the UK shall not murder. Should they do so their right to freedom may be restricted)........ with another breach of the same implicit contract (Clause Y. All residents of the Uk shall pay a tax upon sale of their house, except under certain enumerated circumstances. Should they fail to do so their freedom may be restricted).

BOTH acts (the jailings I'm talking about) are only moral because of the breach of that contract.

The humans that force it to the past are the ones who seek to control the other humans for the own ends, not the humans who want to live peaceably side-by-side with thier neighbours.

I wish to live peacefully side by side with you. I will never threaten you with force of my own accord. However, I understand and accept that the state may do so for breach of the implicit contract.

Because of my acceptance of that I pay my dues under that contract. So, incidentally, do you more or less.

You just aren;t aware of the basis of this all....whilst I am. I am trying to explain this to you.

In fact........... it is worth explicitly saying this.......... I am not making this up as I go along. This is the legal and moral basis for the state all around us. I am not saying anything here that any student, or officer, of that system would not also say. I am not a lone nut saying all this........ it is YOU LOT who are making the cases that are outside the general consensus of all society. You are the oddballs, not me.

Yours,

TGP

[TGP]

So when youwalk out of Curry's with a kettle.......... having siogned no contract agreeing to pay for that kettle if you did so......... then that is not a theft ?

No, it's an implied contract - by allowing you through the door you are allowed to take what you want.

Go on. Try that out. Walk iknto curry's. Pick up a kettle. walk out with it without paying.

Se if you ARE allowed to take what you want.

Where is your written contract stating that you would pay for that kettle ? There isn't one. Only an implicit contract that certain acts constitute transferrence of wonership of the kettle. Walking out the door with it in your hand is one of those acts.

It is an implied contract - by merely being in the same universe as me the owe me everything they have - it's all written right there in the implied contract.

Go on then. Take it.

You'll find........... because MY implied contract is commojnly agreed......... and because YOUR implied contract isn't......... that I get my goods back, and you go to jail.

It doesn;t exist because I say it does. Yours doesn;t exist because you say it does.

They either exist, or not, by common consent.

My version does. Your version does not.

If you managed to create a society where your version was agreed by common consent. Yours would exist, mine would not.

If you DID walk out of curry's without paying for that kettle........ would the lack of any written contract to pay mean you had not stolen it ?

No mate, no - the lack of a written contract proves it's my kettle.

Then we will have to see.

I will ring the police and inform them of this. They will either ignore my call..... or they will arrest you.

The actiuons they take will prove which implied contract is actually commonly agreed and which isn't.

AGAIN.... it doesn;t exist because I say, or because you say...... but because people act on it, or don't act on it.

If I walk into Injins house....... and pick up YOUR kettle......... and walk off with it, can I clain that thius is not theft because I never signed any contract agreeing to pay you for the kettle ?

I suspect you'd be more bothered about the dogs attached to your nads if you tried that, but claim away.

Ah, I see.

So I have enterred into a free act...... which I was entitled to do because I signed no contract saying otherwise. And you ASSAULTED me for no reason ?

How is that moral ? Is it moral, perhaps, because I broke an implicit contract ?

Otherwise....... you just assaulted me for exercising my free right to walk off with anything that I haven't signed a contract saying I've paid for.

heres a hint - it's theft because you don't have a contract.

What you have there is not a contract of sale. It is a receipt declaring that you have performed your half of the contract by paying.

Failure to produce same when walking out of a store with a kettle in your hand may lead to jail.

If it were a contract.......... why would someone jail you for not having a contract ?

It is a receipt, which is why someone may jail you if you do not have it.

Yours,

TGP

Edited March 26, 2010 by TGP

[pootle]

THERE IS NO IMPLICIT CONTACT

To paraphrase your own words, you can claim there is til you are blue in the face but that doens't make it true.

My actions are directed by my own moral system. Some are forced upon me buy the threat of violence.

I choose to drive slowly through built up areas, not because of the speed limit, but because I know there is a risk of an accident and I wish to minimise this risk.

I do not murder people, steal from them, rape them or otherwise initiate force against them because my own moral system tells me this is wrong.

I engage in voluntary and community work because I think this has positive benefits for those around me.

I pay tax because the government will jail me if I don't even though I know that they will use that tax inefficiently and it could achieve greater benefits to those around me if I did not hand it over. I do not do this because of an implicit contract that I cannot see, cannot question and cannot know the details of. Even if such a contract did exist, any contact that is only agreed to under the threat of violence is an invalid contract.

[Injin]

if there are such a thing as implicit contracts - then you can do someone a favour, bill themfor it and then if they don[t pay take their stuff.

if that's the case, you can walk into currys and take anything you like, the favour you have done them being drawing breath in the world near them.

Time to pick TGP. Either any time you do anyone a favour, they owe you or they don't.

[bogbrush]

I can just see TGP doing really well in his little uniform and red peaked cap, decrying the evil revisionists who fail to live up to their implicit contract to strive for the collective good and to give proper service to the collective.

I really scary bit is that I don't think he's doing any of this ironically. He actually beleives we all have implicit contracts written up and signed for us even if we scream from the rooftops that we don't want the deal.

Oh, and we're free to leave the place of our birth, or someone (not him!) will point a gun in our backs.

Terrifying.

[TGP]

I can just see TGP doing really well in his little uniform and red peaked cap, decrying the evil revisionists who fail to live up to their implicit contract to strive for the collective good and to give proper service to the collective.

I really scary bit is that I don't think he's doing any of this ironically. He actually beleives we all have implicit contracts written up and signed for us even if we scream from the rooftops that we don't want the deal.

Oh, and we're free to leave the place of our birth, or someone (not him!) will point a gun in our backs.

Terrifying.

I am not talking of any socialist system. I am talking of our current system. The one we all live in. If there are any revolutionaries donning the red cap it is you. You are all talking of a system that does not exist and which would take far more spilling of blood to create than anything I

agree with. Ultimately, with more blood being spilt in it's everyday running too.

Surely you must realize that. These arguments are no more applicable to socialism than they are to libertarianism. Hell, the conservative party I assume some of you will vote for accepts this analysis. As does ukip. As does the green party. As does the lib dems. As does the bnp and the freaking communist party.

Any of you that think this is immoral.... But will vote in the upcoming elections are complicit. I'd make a case that any of you that do vote are immoral even by your own standads due to that complicity. Hell. At least I'm voting in a system I consder moral. Uou apparently are not.

[D.C.]

The US isn't the only country in the world with an element of private health care - there are many others which merge the basics at state funded, with private for further treatment. In many of these cases, they have much better health than either the UK or the US. As I stated (and you ignored) various key basic health areas should still be covered by the state, IMO.

If you cut taxes for all, the rich and the poor benefit. If you stop the bailouts, red tape, quangos, you free the private sector and the individuals to prosper. As discussed in a similar thread recently, having as free a market as possible, while providing a safety net for those struggling, may benefit people far more. This is hardly "highly selfish", but rather giving everyone a crack of the whip.

How about tackling the hoarding of land, allow free market money, stopping the bailouts and loosening the grip of the VIs? IMO, you are addressing the symptoms, rather than the root causes.

Sorry, didn't mean to ignore any of your points, I've been dipping in and out as several debates seem to be happening on the one thread.

The bits in bold don't sound very libertarian, if a person wishes to horde or to influence surely that is their right to do so in the libertarian school of thought?

Also the bit about 'cutting red tape' is concerning.

We have a corporate sector that has raided it's own employees pensions to enrich the elite and the shareholders, while at the same time it does everything possible to avoid paying tax.

Do you really want red tape cut for banks? Last time I checked we were in a recession of epic proportions because no bothered regulating what they were doing... And you want them to be more free to cause damage instead of less?

While most countries (like France or Germany) fight to preserve and protect it's manufacturing and production our government seem happy to watch it die, you want more of this?

How exactly are you proposing to cut taxes at the moment and at the same time provide a safety net? By doubling borrowing?

This Ayn Rand stuff is what we have been doing for the last 30 years. It just failed. Catastrophically. Or perhaps it wasn't the 'right kind' of Randianism...?

If you want to see somewhere that effectively balances the private sector, the state and the workforce take a good long look at Denmark, you may notice they didn't do it by slashing taxes.

[Injin]

I am not talking of any socialist system. I am talking of our current system. The one we all live in. If there are any revolutionaries donning the red cap it is you. You are all talking of a system that does not exist and which would take far more spilling of blood to create than anything I

agree with. Ultimately, with more blood being spilt in it's everyday running too.

Surely you must realize that. These arguments are no more applicable to socialism than they are to libertarianism. Hell, the conservative party I assume some of you will vote for accepts this analysis. As does ukip. As does the green party. As does the lib dems. As does the bnp and the freaking communist party.

Any of you that think this is immoral.... But will vote in the upcoming elections are complicit. I'd make a case that any of you that do vote are immoral even by your own standads due to that complicity. Hell. At least I'm voting in a system I consder moral. Uou apparently are not.

What's this got to do with the price of fish?

Of course the current system is utterly immoral.

[bogbrush]

I am not talking of any socialist system. I am talking of our current system. The one we all live in. If there are any revolutionaries donning the red cap it is you. You are all talking of a system that does not exist and which would take far more spilling of blood to create than anything I

agree with. Ultimately, with more blood being spilt in it's everyday running too.

Surely you must realize that. These arguments are no more applicable to socialism than they are to libertarianism. Hell, the conservative party I assume some of you will vote for accepts this analysis. As does ukip. As does the green party. As does the lib dems. As does the bnp and the freaking communist party.

Any of you that think this is immoral.... But will vote in the upcoming elections are complicit. I'd make a case that any of you that do vote are immoral even by your own standads due to that complicity. Hell. At least I'm voting in a system I consder moral. Uou apparently are not.

I didn't bring Socialism, Or Toryism into this. For the red peaked cap you can read Brown Shirt, or Council Official.

My concern is that you don't appear to see anything wrong with declaring moral contracts will nilly just because somebody chooses not to get on a boat. It's downright weird, imho.

I bet you think it's right that possessing a device for the receiving of radio waves is illegal without a government licence. FFS, we point at China for censoring Google and forget stuff like that.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

I can just see TGP doing really well in his little uniform and red peaked cap, decrying the evil revisionists who fail to live up to their implicit contract to strive for the collective good and to give proper service to the collective.

I really scary bit is that I don't think he's doing any of this ironically. He actually beleives we all have implicit contracts written up and signed for us even if we scream from the rooftops that we don't want the deal.

Oh, and we're free to leave the place of our birth, or someone (not him!) will point a gun in our backs.

Terrifying.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Tamara De Lempicka

[TGP]

What's this got to do with the price of fish?

Of course the current system is utterly immoral.

Yes, but is a libertarian state ?....... say the most libertarian state currently in existence (whatever that is) utterly iummoral too ?

Thats where I suspect you part company with most other posters, even those arguing on your side right now. The arguments I am making are as applicable to the most libertarian state as they are to todays state. In fact, libertarian states are limited to exactly this public goods argument and little/nothing else.

The other posters here seem to be under the impression I am arguing for a communalist utopia. I am not. These arguments are as applicable to this society, and the most minimalist liberatrian state as they are to any other state system. This is the bare minimum. Anyone who considers this immoral......... cannot describe themselves as anything other than an out-and-out anarchist. Not even a libertarian.

My concern is that you don't appear to see anything wrong with declaring moral contracts will nilly just because somebody chooses not to get on a boat. It's downright weird, imho.

NO. I've said it again and again. This argument is ONLY applicable to public goods. When challenged as to why tis is moral...... I've always HAD to state that the good is non-excludable except by geographic area.

The kind of governement power that even the most libertarian state would allow.

It was deliberately chosen to exclude anarchists and no-one else.

In the length and vigour of the argument your side has lost sight of that (even if I haven't). I am talking about the bare bones of a state. Defence, Public Health (sewers). things that, by DEFINITION, cannot be organised except on a societal level because they are non-excludable except by geographic area.

Take the NHS...... can't justify it with this argument (you can exclude people from healthcare).

Social Security......can't justify it with this argument (you can exclude people from pensions).

Unemployment Benefits......can't justify it with this argument (you can exclude people from dole).

Almost every aspect of a modern state cannot be justified in this way (although other arguments may justify them, but thats for another day).

This is the bare minimum....... services that CANNOT exclude people and so CANNOT be provided on a private basis. That is what public goods ARE.

How you got from there to a red capped communalist utopia is beyond me. The whole argument revolves around one issue. NON-EXCLUDABILITY.

It is an argument against anarchists.......... that even libertarians would accept. ...... and was deliberately chosen to be that.

I bet you think it's right that possessing a device for the receiving of radio waves is illegal without a government licence. FFS, we point at China for censoring Google and forget stuff like that.

No. You can exclude people from listening to radio by not selling them a f***ing radio.

This about goods you cannot exclude on.

Look. Take defence.

I cannot defend my house from a nuclear attack without defending injins. I cannot exclude him. I cannot set up a private market where, if I buy "non-nuke protection" Injin does not receive it too.

So a free market can't work. Free markets RELY on only delivering services to those who pay, and excluding those who do not.

Once you cannot exclude......... then NO-ONE will buy such protection on a free market. Everyone attempts to "free ride" on the contributions of others...... and despite 95% of the population wanting to be protected from nukes, no one can be.

There IS only one way around that. That is taxes.

Even Libertarians understand this (that is why they are libertarians rather than anarchists).

This is not an argument that can be applied to taxing people in order to provide free F****ing condoms (to pick a random example).

It is limited, quite severly so, in what it can justify. I have tried and tried to make that clear in almost every post I made......... but I can't seem to get that past your fantasy life in which I am a communaloist maoist or something.

You know what ?

When you were fantasising about my little red cap and communalist utopia.......... I was imagining your state, where this basic base level taxation was not justified.

The one in which your child dies of cholera. Not because YOU don't pay your "voluntary sewage charge"........ but because the minimum wage worker who makes your daughters sandwiches cannot afford his charge, and so uses his right to not pay it, throws his sh*t in the street and just contracted cholera as a result.

Where Pootle now lives in a Nazi hell-hole....... because the argument against all this won the day in 1920's britain....... and by 1939's britain the "defence forces" consisted of the few old men armed with WWI era rifles that the "voluntary defence charge" could afford (as everyone attempted to avoid his charge, leaving the actual payment up to others).

Where Injin sits weeping in the ruins of his house, with all his Krugerands stolen, because him,his dogs, and a handful of guns could not defend him from Don Gordo....... whose "Nu Mafia" consists of 300 guys with lots more guns, and Injin cannot afford enough protection on his own to protect himself from him, and especially cannot afford to hire enough goons to get his krugerands back.

What do you THINK will happen if people can "opt out" of, say, public health ? or Defence ? or basic justice services ?

What happens when..... they go round with the tin....... and 10% refuse to pay (attempting to freeload, or just on principle)...... so they go round with the tin again asking for 10% more (which prompts more to withdraw).......... and they go round with the tin again to make up the new shortfall (and so even more people are forced out by the high price)......... and they go round again, and again, and again with ever more people being priced out.

Sh*t runs down the streets. Thats what. People get Cholera.

There IS no justice system. The guy who can muster the most guns can do what he likes.

LESS Idiotic (but far more horrific) societies next door blow past your pitiful military and impose their totalitarian bullsh*t on you.

Thats what happens.

You don;t end up with a society where "people who want protection against cholera" pay for it........ the protection is that everyone has it. When some/half/most people don't YOU get cholera......... even though you paid.

You don't end up with a society where "people who want protection against invasion" pay for it........ the protection is that everyone has it. When some/half/most people don't YOU get invaded by the next totalitarian sh*thead who isn;t as moronic....... even though you paid.

You don't end up with a society where "people who want protection against theft" pay for it........ the protection is that everyone has it. When some/half/most people don't YOU get all your sh*t stolen by the next theiving sh*thead who can muster more force than you can pay for....... even though you paid.

Yours,

TGP

[Injin]

Yes, but is a libertarian state ?....... say the most libertarian state currently in existence (whatever that is) utterly iummoral too ?

Thats where I suspect you part company with most other posters, even those arguing on your side right now. The arguments I am making are as applicable to the most libertarian state as they are to todays state. In fact, libertarian states are limited to exactly this public goods argument and little/nothing else.

Yep.

All states are evil.

The other posters here seem to be under the impression I am arguing for a communalist utopia. I am not. These arguments are as applicable to this society, and the most minimalist liberatrian state as they are to any other state system. This is the bare minimum. Anyone who considers this immoral......... cannot describe themselves as anything other than an out-and-out anarchist. Not even a libertarian.

Or you could look at it that logical, rational and moral thinking leads you to anarachy (which it does.)

NO. I've said it again and again. This argument is ONLY applicable to public goods. When challenged as to why tis is moral...... I've always HAD to state that the good is non-excludable except by geographic area.

The realworld isn't divided up into arbitary regions - they only exist inside your head. Therefore your position is factually wrong. So, drop it.

The kind of governement power that even the most libertarian state would allow.

It was deliberately chosen to exclude anarchists and no-one else.

In the length and vigour of the argument your side has lost sight of that (even if I haven't). I am talking about the bare bones of a state. Defence, Public Health (sewers). things that, by DEFINITION, cannot be organised except on a societal level because they are non-excludable except by geographic area.

Take the NHS...... can't justify it with this argument (you can exclude people from healthcare).

Social Security......can't justify it with this argument (you can exclude people from pensions).

Unemployment Benefits......can't justify it with this argument (you can exclude people from dole).

Almost every aspect of a modern state cannot be justified in this way (although other arguments may justify them, but thats for another day).

This is the bare minimum....... services that CANNOT exclude people and so CANNOT be provided on a private basis. That is what public goods ARE.

How you got from there to a red capped communalist utopia is beyond me. The whole argument revolves around one issue. NON-EXCLUDABILITY.

It is an argument against anarchists.......... that even libertarians would accept. ...... and was deliberately chosen to be that.

It's an argument against sense, logic and evidence.

No. You can exclude people from listening to radio by not selling them a f***ing radio.

This about goods you cannot exclude on.

Look. Take defence.

I cannot defend my house from a nuclear attack without defending injins. I cannot exclude him. I cannot set up a private market where, if I buy "non-nuke protection" Injin does not receive it too.

So what?

You want something and in the getting of it, I also benefit.

I owe you nothing.

So a free market can't work. Free markets RELY on only delivering services to those who pay, and excluding those who do not.

Once you cannot exclude......... then NO-ONE will buy such protection on a free market. Everyone attempts to "free ride" on the contributions of others...... and despite 95% of the population wanting to be protected from nukes, no one can be.

There IS only one way around that. That is taxes.

Even Libertarians understand this (that is why they are libertarians rather than anarchists).

This is not an argument that can be applied to taxing people in order to provide free F****ing condoms (to pick a random example).

It is limited, quite severly so, in what it can justify. I have tried and tried to make that clear in almost every post I made......... but I can't seem to get that past your fantasy life in which I am a communaloist maoist or something.

You know what ?

When you were fantasising about my little red cap and communalist utopia.......... I was imagining your state, where this basic base level taxation was not justified.

The one in which your child dies of cholera. Not because YOU don't pay your "voluntary sewage charge"........ but because the minimum wage worker who makes your daughters sandwiches cannot afford his charge, and so uses his right to not pay it, throws his sh*t in the street and just contracted cholera as a result.

Where Pootle now lives in a Nazi hell-hole....... because the argument against all this won the day in 1920's britain....... and by 1939's britain the "defence forces" consisted of the few old men armed with WWI era rifles that the "voluntary defence charge" could afford (as everyone attempted to avoid his charge, leaving the actual payment up to others).

Where Injin sits weeping in the ruins of his house, with all his Krugerands stolen, because him,his dogs, and a handful of guns could not defend him from Don Gordo....... whose "Nu Mafia" consists of 300 guys with lots more guns, and Injin cannot afford enough protection on his own to protect himself from him, and especially cannot afford to hire enough goons to get his krugerands back.

What do you THINK will happen if people can "opt out" of, say, public health ? or Defence ? or basic justice services ?

What happens when..... they go round with the tin....... and 10% refuse to pay (attempting to freeload, or just on principle)...... so they go round with the tin again asking for 10% more (which prompts more to withdraw).......... and they go round with the tin again to make up the new shortfall (and so even more people are forced out by the high price)......... and they go round again, and again, and again with ever more people being priced out.

Sh*t runs down the streets. Thats what. People get Cholera.

There IS no justice system. The guy who can muster the most guns can do what he likes.

LESS Idiotic (but far more horrific) societies next door blow past your pitiful military and impose their totalitarian bullsh*t on you.

Thats what happens.

You don;t end up with a society where "people who want protection against cholera" pay for it........ the protection is that everyone has it. When some/half/most people don't YOU get cholera......... even though you paid.

You don't end up with a society where "people who want protection against invasion" pay for it........ the protection is that everyone has it. When some/half/most people don't YOU get invaded by the next totalitarian sh*thead who isn;t as moronic....... even though you paid.

You don't end up with a society where "people who want protection against theft" pay for it........ the protection is that everyone has it. When some/half/most people don't YOU get all your sh*t stolen by the next theiving sh*thead who can muster more force than you can pay for....... even though you paid.

Yours,

TGP

Oh dear.

[TGP]

Yep.

All states are evil.

Right. That is where you part company with sane people.

States can be good. They can prevent/save/avoid far more violence, blood, death and loss of freedom than they cause.

It is very hard to maintain the idea that "the most minimalist libertarian state" does not provide a "less evil alternative" than "every man for himself and may the one with the most guns win".

Or you could look at it that logical, rational and moral thinking leads you to anarachy (which it does.)

I have never seen you even attempt to demonstrate that it does. You just state something like "IF people were this perfect non-violent wonderful being that didn;t do nasty things........ anarchy would be the best system". I have never seen you attempt to argue that given humans AS THEY ARE anarchism would work. It always ultimately rests on them NOT being how they are.

The realworld isn't divided up into arbitary regions - they only exist inside your head. Therefore your position is factually wrong. So, drop it.

I see. The world is NOT divided up into the "bit Injin owns" and "the bits injin doesn't" ? Thats just in your head is it ?

What if you agreed with a friend........ we'll both protect "our" bit as a team......... but not the rest...... we'll work together to protect "our" bit. That division does not exist ?

It's an argument against sense, logic and evidence.

No it isn't. It's an argument that ........ as long as you take humans as they are, sa they have been throughout history, is the only sensible logical conclusion you can come to. We NEED to band together on occasions to, say, protect ourselves. We cannot afford to let free-loaders benefit from that without paying, otherwise the others in our little deal start to defect too, and we end up with no communal protection. Just individuals with guns. They cannot stand against other, less idiotic, conglomerations that DO enforce taxes. The big evil conglomerates pick off your little anarchist "armed services of one" buit by bit, one at a time, until you are all dead/enslaved.

So what?

You want something and in the getting of it, I also benefit.

I owe you nothing.

Then I owe you nothing. Certainly not the respect for your rights that might lead me NOT to chuck you out of our little area of protected land. Protected by me and the others banding together to do so.

In your anarchist society........ when someone refuses lives in the villagge.......... but refuses to contribute to the militia by turning out. Do you protect him for free out of the goodn ess of your heart ? Or do you say "We aren't fighting and dying on the walls to save you. Either fight with us or get out the village. We aren't dying for you while you sit here laughing at us poor fools defending the village".

Oh dear.

Oh dear indeed.

When you are throwing your sh*t in the streets......... as are lots of other people........ as you don't want to/can't afford the "voluntary sewage charge", how WILL you cope with the fact that your chances of contracting cholera, typhus and a host of other diseases from normal everday activities just went up 1000% ?

Or that you personal "defence force of one" can't defend you from that evil bugger over there who operates in a gang of 300 ?

Or from that totalitarian nutjob over there who operates in a "gang" of 60million ?

Yours,

TGP

[Injin]

Right. That is where you part company with sane people.

States can be good. They can prevent/save/avoid far more violence, blood, death and loss of freedom than they cause.

It is very hard to maintain the idea that "the most minimalist libertarian state" does not provide a "less evil alternative" than "every man for himself and may the one with the most guns win".

no, states can never be good.

Neccessary evil isn't good.

I have never seen you even attempt to demonstrate that it does. You just state something like "IF people were this perfect non-violent wonderful being that didn;t do nasty things........ anarchy would be the best system". I have never seen you attempt to argue that given humans AS THEY ARE anarchism would work. It always ultimately rests on them NOT being how they are.

I agree - and I will happily tell you that most people are broken and that any attempt to bring in anarchy right now would result in chaos.

I see. The world is NOT divided up into the "bit Injin owns" and "the bits injin doesn't" ? Thats just in your head is it ?

What if you agreed with a friend........ we'll both protect "our" bit as a team......... but not the rest...... we'll work together to protect "our" bit. That division does not exist ?

Yep, fine.

No it isn't. It's an argument that ........ as long as you take humans as they are, sa they have been throughout history, is the only sensible logical conclusion you can come to. We NEED to band together on occasions to, say, protect ourselves. We cannot afford to let free-loaders benefit from that without paying, otherwise the others in our little deal start to defect too, and we end up with no communal protection. Just individuals with guns. They cannot stand against other, less idiotic, conglomerations that DO enforce taxes. The big evil conglomerates pick off your little anarchist "armed services of one" buit by bit, one at a time, until you are all dead/enslaved.

You seem to think I've rejected all communal activities, just because I have told you to stick your attempts to force me into your communal activities up your ****. I'm more than happy to band with others when it's in my self interest - as long as I am the one who decides when that is.

Then I owe you nothing. Certainly not the respect for your rights that might lead me NOT to chuck you out of our little area of protected land. Protected by me and the others banding together to do so.

In your anarchist society........ when someone refuses lives in the villagge.......... but refuses to contribute to the militia by turning out. Do you protect him for free out of the goodn ess of your heart ? Or do you say "We aren't fighting and dying on the walls to save you. Either fight with us or get out the village. We aren't dying for you while you sit here laughing at us poor fools defending the village".

Why would I refuse to team with others, if presented with decent evidence of a direct threat to me?

Oh dear indeed.

When you are throwing your sh*t in the streets......... as are lots of other people........ as you don't want to/can't afford the "voluntary sewage charge", how WILL you cope with the fact that your chances of contracting cholera, typhus and a host of other diseases from normal everday activities just went up 1000% ?

Or that you personal "defence force of one" can't defend you from that evil bugger over there who operates in a gang of 300 ?

Or from that totalitarian nutjob over there who operates in a "gang" of 60million ?

Yours,

TGP

You seem to think that me rejecting your attempts to force me into doing things immediately makes me a retard and incapable of using or understanding what a toilet is.

Bloody daft, frankly. You show me evidence that a few quid from me will stop cholera, why wouldn't I pay?

[TGP]

no, states can never be good.

Neccessary evil isn't good.

I disagree. States can be good. They cancreate situations where the everybody involved lives a better life than they would without their existence.

They do not always have to be this way, but sometimes they are. Right now, you are living in a state where this is the case. You wouldn't be if you were living in Stalins russia, or Hitlers germany, or (hell) even just plain old Franco's spain.

But right now ? You are getting more from the deal than you are losing, and I can conceive of states that give you far better deals even than todays state ....... possibly at the libertarian end of the specturm.........possibly in just a better run version of our current social democratic end of the spectrum.

I agree - and I will happily tell you that most people are broken and that any attempt to bring in anarchy right now would result in chaos.

Fine, then you agree that NOW a situation where there is a state is better than one where there is not, given the state of humans now.

Consequently, because such states require taxes........ it is better for you to take the deal of "state + taxes" today than "no taxes + no state" today.

I have no real quibbles about you saying "If humans were utterly different in this way, anarchism would work". You can say thats about lots of things. If humans were very different in another way, communism would work.

I just deal with humans how they are. How they are now........... a state is better than no state.

You seem to think I've rejected all communal activities, just because I have told you to stick your attempts to force me into your communal activities up your ****. I'm more than happy to band with others when it's in my self interest - as long as I am the one who decides when that is.

Yes, but a state is just that communal activity scaled up REALLY big. So big that people start calling it a nation. And so big that it becomes really hard to deal with everyodies personal decisions on a "pick 'n' mix" basis.

Scale your communal/consensual agreemtn up to a number of people in the millions....... and a an area in the thousands of square miles......... then when some numbnuts right in the centre of everybody else refuses to consent you are stuck with the choice of "join in, or get out". When they get that big you CAN'T just carve out his own little ghetto for him and let him get on with it........ NOT without compromising all the bits that all the rest of you are happy to pay for.

Why would I refuse to team with others, if presented with decent evidence of a direct threat to me?

Lets say because you're a coward.......... or because you perceive your personal best interest is in claiming you don;t want it, refusing to pay for it, then allowing yourself to be protected in any case......... perhaps you're poor (in money or in time) and you decide "keeping this money/time and still being protected is better than giving it up and only getting the same protection"......... lots of reasons.

In cases where to get a result the co-operation of thousands is required........ it becomes easy for humans to try and free ride on the efforts of others. Many humansd try to do so. The humans who are prepared to contribute try to find ways to prevent them free riding on others efforts. In the case of non-excludable goods this is very difficult. The only viable solution we have found so far are the taxes you find so objectionable.

You seem to think that me rejecting your attempts to force me into doing things immediately makes me a retard and incapable of using or understanding what a toilet is.

No. I stipulated that YOU are prepared to pay for your toilet. You voluntarily agree to do so. You pay for the sewer system that takes that waste away, it's processing and it's eventual release in a non-dangerous form.

However if the charge is voluntary OTHER WILL NOT DO SO. They will sh*t in a bucket and throw it in the street rather than pay the fees. To them the choice of doing so is a better deal. Perhaps they can;t afford the fees. Perhaps they can, but wqould rather spend the money elsewhere. If it is all voluntary, they can do so whenever they wish.

It is THEIR sh*t in the streets that gives YOU cholera. Not your own.

Bloody daft, frankly. You show me evidence that a few quid from me will stop cholera, why wouldn't I pay?

For lots of reasons. Put 60m people on a small Island........ and lots of them will not pay for some reason or another.

Some cannot afford even the tiny fee. They'd rather eat and sh*t in the street than pay the fee and not eat. Others are just d*rty f*ckers who don't care. Others live in situations where the costs are very high. Others in situations where the benefits are very low. Others make a rational choice that "I'd rather save the £30 a month and just chuck a bucket of it in the street". People make all kinds of choices. Not all of them make the same as you do.

Their failure to pay raises the costs/lowers the benefits for everyone else. Their are less "per capita" funding the sewer system. There is already some sh*t in the street in any case. Because people balance costs/benefits this causes others to leave, as their threshold has been crossed. This raises costs/lowers benefits (higher fees, more sh*t in the streets in any case). More leave as their threshold is crossed.

At some point the benefits are so low......... and the costs so high.......... that even YOU leave. It's no longer worth £1,000 a month for your own private sewer (because no one else uses it) as the benefits are low (the streets are running with other peoples sh*t in any case, why not throw yours there and pocket the £1,000).

Your voluntary system has been destroyed by free riders. You catch cholera. While sh*tting your life away you wonder why no-one had the good sense to make the charge for a sewer system a mandatory tax because almost everyone you know pines for the old days when this was the case. Unfortunately, you've set up "moron world" and that is no longer possible. So you sh*t your life away realising where you went wrong.

For a free market to work.......... people MUST be excluded from the major benefits if they fail to pay.

In any case where you CANNOT exclude people from the major benefits (in this case extremely low incidence of waste bourne diseases) people will attempt to free ride.

You can either tell them to "pay or get out"........ because you can ALWAYS exclude by geographical area......... or you can just sit and watch as the ratcheting of free riders (higher costs, lower benefits) destroys your "principled" voluntary system.

Yours,

TGP