-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Australian Economics
- Thread starter 1eyedtiger
- Start date
Yes it was. You asked is any level of taxation needed, well that really depends on who is in need. The only person that "needs" it are people that want to get away with extortion.Azza said:
Answering your second question: I take it you mean under an unhampered market economic and a free law society? Then the answer is no level is acceptable. If one wishes to be part of a society and is prepared to use argument to determine how the rules of the society are set and enforced, then one presupposes private property rights, because otherwise you'd have to somehow seek permission from everybody to make an argument in the first place or to even use your own body in any capacity. Hence anyone that argues for taxation contradicts themselves, as it is a clear violation of private property rights.
Yes. If you want me to elaborate on that then you're best served by expanding your reading. I recommend "the structure of liberty" by Randy Barnett and "The economics and ethics of private property" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. This article by the latter provides a good summary of how a private law society would work: https://mises.org/library/state-or-private-law-societyAzza said:
Also Stephen Kinsella has some good youtube videos about private law.
Basically, but private property owners can also set rules on their own properties, such as "no collingwood supporters are welcome", or "no positive views about Dimma's gameplan may be spoken aloud".Baloo said:
So there are private police forces enforcing agreed on laws about private property.
What happens if I want your property and have amassed vastly more money than anyone else, so pay my police force to kill you so I can take your property?
Or I join up with all your neighbours who also want your property, and we join our police forces to take you out and share the loot?
What happens if I want your property and have amassed vastly more money than anyone else, so pay my police force to kill you so I can take your property?
Or I join up with all your neighbours who also want your property, and we join our police forces to take you out and share the loot?
Azza said:
im more concerned that those who own the private property that surrounds my private property will choose to do things with their land that will remove my ability to access my land. i guess they could charge me an access fee, but then they may not.
Giardiasis said:
your previous post said they were here to invest. now you say they are here to make money. they are 2 very different things.
Giardiasis said:
in order for support to be effective it needs more than individuals to provide money, or even businesses. i think there is plenty of evidence around the globe that when gov doesnt provide support for people in need, people suffer. your utopia doesnt care. i do.
you continually all tax theft. i call it tax, so i dont need to justify any theft.
Yes that’s correct.Azza said:
Assuming you succeed, you will then find it very difficult to maintain your economic dominance, because peaceful people will likely cut ties to your business activities either by refusing to provide insurance, refusing to contract, or refusing to purchase their products. To be clear, private law society does not mean bad people don’t exist anymore or have the ability to kill people. Nor can it just be implemented tomorrow; the majority of people have to want to peacefully coexist with one another, they have to understand the importance of private property, and they have to understand that their interests are best served by the free market.Azza said:
The evidence you look at fails to look at the opportunity costs. A government official redistributes money to help disabled persons, and says, “look at the good I have done!”, yet they fail to point out that the person they extorted to provide the funds to help disabled persons now doesn’t have money to put to breast cancer research, or child support services, or providing foreign aid, etc. Or they don’t have the money to invest into productivity improvements, which then enhances the wealth of many others that then have a greater ability to support causes they value. The extorted person will also by far allocate their money much more efficiently then a government official, as they are spending their own money that they earned through hard work. You need to look past the obvious, and see the true casual chain of consequences of government taxation and redistribution.Brodders17 said:
I don’t advocate utopia, I advocate for the best method possible. It is certainly not perfect.
Dear me. So I could murder you in cold blood, and if I said I don’t call it murder but instead “Helping mother nature”, that would mean it’s not murder all of a sudden? Governments have employed many euphemisms to turn what would be considered a crime for private people into what is simply called public policy. Theft is tax, counterfeiting is monetary policy, kidnapping and murder is conscription, genocide is ethnic cleansing.Brodders17 said:
Giardiasis said:
Look, a quick instructional talk to these people from a benevolent wealthy person who controls a very large and powerful private
Giardiasis said:
all words are only defined by usage. you are trying to re-define tax as theft because it suits your argument.
any way in your world it wouldnt matter what it was called because you wouldnt have broken any law, because there could be no laws. i guess i could only hope someone who cared for me took their revenge.
i do wonder what would happen to my property, as their would be no law to dictate who now owned it. i guess you could perhaps have claimed it for yourself.
No I’m not. If I went up to you and threatened incarceration if you didn’t pay me tax, then I’d be committing a crime, but apparently when the government does it, it is all good. You are the one that seeks to re-define theft as tax. Law should apply equally to all people. What we have today are laws for some (private people) and laws for others (politicians).Brodders17 said:
If you read through the previous posts you would have seen that law would still exist. Private law would be substituted for statutory law. Have a read.Brodders17 said:
