If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You think all people who work for charities do it out of altruism?
But when it come to those at the top, I'd say you're far more likely to get someone becoming a charity organiser for moral reasons, than becoming a politician for moral reasons. The one thing that seperates them (since both believe they are doing the job to help others) is that politicians have lots power, charity organisers don't (or at least only have power that people have expressly given them by voluntarily donating). Politics basically attracts people who believe they know what's best for everyone else.
I can't see it working.
You are mentioning several examples as to why you might be dissatified with the service. Well that's easy, if you're not getting what you payed for, you stop paying. There you are, instant consequences for someone not doing what they say. What do you do if street lights aren't working at the moment? Inform someone at the council? You might get them back on within 3 months if you're lucky. What would you do in this fictional world we're creating? You'd cut payment. Soon enough another company would come along and say "we'll do the job for you" and you have your service back.
The bit about the library was a prime example. If there isn't the demand from people willing to pay for the service, then why should everyone have to pay for it to exist? If you choose to live in a remote area, why should everyone else subsidise your bus journey? If the demand is there, someone will provide the service.
All theoretical of course. I'm not sure how well it'd work in practice. On the one hand I think it'll just result in the rich people having all the power. On the other hand I think, is that really so different to the current situation?
But the point of taxes, and of charity in this hypothetical situation, is to provide for those who cannot afford it (healthcare, education), or to provide services that would only exist if people club together and pay a little bit each (roads, street lighting).
Yep.
You don't have to pay for roads and street lighting through charity. Currently large corporations get the taxpayer to pay for the roads that they have to have to make their profits. it. Tesco wants a new set of roads and a roundabout for it's new store?
They go wine and dine some councillor, hand him some wedge and he dips into the council tax coffers for them. It's cheaper for them to do that and more expensive for everyone else.
Without such taxpaying they would have to make it a business cost.
Also, if you cannot afford it, what the hell are you doing it for anyway?
Wile taxpayers provide there is no direct disincentive for many behaviours and a direct incentive for many others that are destructive.
Want to be a teenage mum? No problem, taxpayers will provide. Want to pollute the atmosphere? No problem, you bribe our MP's through donations and the taxpayer can clean it up.
You think drugs would be as much a problem with legalisation?
Nope.
Oh not just the lazy! Theres the violent, the grasping, the genuinely concerned for standards within their industry but ignorant of the true nature of the state, and the state does provide the roads, the hospitals and all that good stuff.
The fact that it does it incredibly badly, totally immorally and only for it's own ends is the only snag. It manages to become the middleman for as many transactions as it possibly can so as to hoover as much resources for itself as possible.
They provide the roads. So there is car tax, and number plates, and speeding fines and cameras and traffic police and driving licences and yadda yadda. So in exchange for providing something that would have to be built anyway it gets a steady stream of enormous income and another method of control. It does this in all areas it can, sucking the life out of enterprise to feed itself.
It then uses those resources to control, dominate, kill and maintain itself. It uses the funds to maintain the illusion it is needed, when of course it is not.
Except in efficency, effect and the whole not killing millions of people thing. :rolleyes:
Oh and you'd have freedom as well.
Yeah but apart from that no improvement at all.
Oh it's not the fact that's it's "charity" that makes it work - it's this -
If you do it badly you don't get paid.
Works on absolutely everyone.
Who are the worst workers in the world?
Those who get paid regardless of performance.
Take a shufti at two factories, one has people on flat wages. The second one is set up so the more productive you are, the more you get paid and if you do nothing you get nothing.
Which factory is hardest working?
Not even a question is it?
Now any chance of addressing any of the other points you've wandered away from?
Why do you think a system based on voluntary participation isn't better than one based on violent coercion?
Hmm interesting.
Why do you think -
1) that people have social responsibilities
2) they will shirk them if they do
3) theres a difference between the people in government and other people
?
Why do you think this is a problem?
Not everyone will shirk their social responsibilities, but plenty will (or give the absolute minimum, or think that those with higher incomes should pay more etc, etc). The end shot would be that a lot less money would come into dealing with social problems than would under tax.
However few people will shirk their work responsibility for the simple reason, that do it long enough and at best you'll find yourself on the same shitty salary you were on when you were twenty one and at worst find yourself being sacked.
If I shirked my work responsibilities (part of which is setting up systems to allow 'socially important' things to be deliveredd at less cost and more efficiently. I would get the sack - therefore its in my best interests to do my job efficiently. same for millions of others on the public pay role...
No shit. How does this create responsibilities though? I like monster munch (childish I know) but it's not like I have any obligation to it.
Division of labour 101. Fair enough. But my only interest is in what you can produce that is of interest to me and vice versa.
If you have a voluntary situation and are producing stuff no one wants you have to stop and go do something they do want or you wind up broke. If you are using violence to get paid there is no real mechanism to stop you producing goods and services that no one wants/needs.
Good questions. Why do those things? I see no reason.
Yes. You are claiming that people are short sighted, stupid, self interested and all the rest of it.
So my question is what is different about the human beings who work in the state than human beings who don't?
You have a two category system without a selection process.
George Orwell