Voluntary Exchange

[Funkyterrance]

a lot of good points have been made in this thread... i don't have much to add but i think haggis is the most correct so far... there's no strict dividing line between "voluntary" and "forced"... it's a continuum like most things are... you don't have to be a total determinist to realize this.

I think there certainly is a point where it becomes no longer voluntary. Would you say that slavery is a voluntary exchange? How about a prisoner locked in a dungeon in shackles? In these scenarios you may or may not have the ability choose between complying or not . There comes a point where its no longer reasonable to say "Well, you've still got options". The difference of course is in the details but the slippery slope just is not a viable course on this one.

The point is any line you choose to draw will be arbitrary. To maintain the voluntary/involuntary dichotomy you have to choose a random point and say "ok, decisions to the left of this point are voluntary and decisions to the right of this point are involuntary".
I'm just saying that's not a good system.

Accepting that a sliding scale exists doesn't mean that you are rejecting the extremes (see argument of the beard), it still allows for things which are clearly near the voluntary end of the scale and for things which are clearly near the involuntary end of the scale.
Accepting the existence of the scale just means you can be more objective in your descriptions and not create stupid arguments and useless divisiveness which will inevitably arise when your arbitrary delimiter between voluntary and involuntary is different from someone else's random delimiter.

I'm suggesting that the line is actually very distinct in that it lies at the point where the motivation for an exchange extends beyond the exchange itself. If I make an offer and you refuse, I can't enter any further motivation into the exchange or it loses its qualification for voluntary.
Let's say I offer my services as a roof repairer to you for $50 dollars an hour. If you fail to find this exchange satisfactory, you can refuse. It's the point where I say "What if I told you I'd break your thumbs if you refused?" that delineates between voluntary and involuntary. Any influence outside the exchange itself makes the exchange involuntary/contaminated.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I'm suggesting that the line is actually very distinct in that it lies at the point where the motivation for an exchange extends beyond the exchange itself. If I make an offer and you refuse, I can't enter any further motivation into the exchange or it loses its qualification for voluntary.
Let's say I offer my services as a roof repairer to you for $50 dollars an hour. If you fail to find this exchange satisfactory, you can refuse. It's the point where I say "What if I told you I'd break your thumbs if you refused?" that delineates between voluntary and involuntary. Any influence outside the exchange itself makes the exchange involuntary/contaminated.

So then the previous gym example is involuntary cause the exchange is 30 bucks for 1 month membership and the girlfriend threatening to dump you is "motivation beyond the exchange itself", right?

[Funkyterrance]

I'm suggesting that the line is actually very distinct in that it lies at the point where the motivation for an exchange extends beyond the exchange itself. If I make an offer and you refuse, I can't enter any further motivation into the exchange or it loses its qualification for voluntary.
Let's say I offer my services as a roof repairer to you for $50 dollars an hour. If you fail to find this exchange satisfactory, you can refuse. It's the point where I say "What if I told you I'd break your thumbs if you refused?" that delineates between voluntary and involuntary. Any influence outside the exchange itself makes the exchange involuntary/contaminated.

So then the previous gym example is involuntary cause the exchange is 30 bucks for 1 month membership and the girlfriend threatening to dump you is "motivation beyond the exchange itself", right?

Eh, no. The "currency" as it were in your gym example is emotion so really there is no overstepping in that one. As long as the currency in a scenario is consistent there really is no change in the voluntary/involuntary status of an example as it's always voluntary if you are able to pay the price.

[_sabotage_]

Considering that 70% of people who join the gym only come a few times, and 90% overestimate how often they will come, I would suggest running in the park for a couple weeks before joining the gym.

[Funkyterrance]

So basically, as long as you don't mix currencies(monetary vs. emotional) and there are no outside influences beyond the exchange itself, it's a voluntary exchange.

[john9blue]

a lot of good points have been made in this thread... i don't have much to add but i think haggis is the most correct so far... there's no strict dividing line between "voluntary" and "forced"... it's a continuum like most things are... you don't have to be a total determinist to realize this.

I think there certainly is a point where it becomes no longer voluntary. Would you say that slavery is a voluntary exchange? How about a prisoner locked in a dungeon in shackles? In these scenarios you may or may not have the ability choose between complying or not . There comes a point where its no longer reasonable to say "Well, you've still got options". The difference of course is in the details but the slippery slope just is not a viable course on this one.

slaves still have the options of attempting to run away, committing suicide, etc.

prisoners are the same way, except running away would obviously be harder.

nobody with free will is ever "forced" to do anything. there are always essentially an infinite amount of choices to make and an infinite amount of factors influencing your decisions. people only call something "involuntary" when it is influenced by a factor (such as government) that makes an ideal choice less than ideal.

[Funkyterrance]

slaves still have the options of attempting to run away, committing suicide, etc.

prisoners are the same way, except running away would obviously be harder.

nobody with free will is ever "forced" to do anything. there are always essentially an infinite amount of choices to make and an infinite amount of factors influencing your decisions. people only call something "involuntary" when it is influenced by a factor (such as government) that makes an ideal choice less than ideal.

I feel like you've hit the "rewind" button a little bit but at any rate I can think of a scenario where you as a prisoner would not have free will. Let's say you are imprisoned, restrained and force fed through a tube which you had no control over(it's doable). I suppose you could hold your breath until you passed out but even then you'd be far from dead even upon repeated attempts at this. In this scenario you are being "forced" to live and remain a prisoner, etc.. I can imagine several other instances where a prisoner or a slave might have a very finite number of options depending on how strict his or her captor/master may be.

[BigBallinStalin]

voluntary exchange
Let's say I want to join a gym. They offer access to their facilities in exchange for $30 per month. The formal laws (codified) are written on some billboard (e.g. don't run around the pool; wear protective footwear whilst in the weight room; etc.). The informal laws are implicitly understood and usually don't need to be written (e.g. don't enter the building while screaming ferociously, and other variously understood laws within the Golden "Don't Be a Dick" Rule).

I'm generally aware of what kind of behavior they expect in a gym, and since I value the gym membership more than $30 per month, then I voluntarily agree to the exchange.


involuntary exchange
If an exchange involves coercion, i.e. made under duress by threat of physical violence, if one other party has not previously agreed upon the exchange, thus not upon the previous rules, then this is an involuntary exchange.

So, with this in mind, what contract did you sign when you were born into a liberal democracy?

I agree that paying taxes is more involuntary than signing up for a gym. I just don't agree that the fact that a contract is involved in the first case and a gun isn't pointed at your head then that means it is 100% voluntary.
What if your girlfriend says to get your fat ass in the gym or she's dumping you. is that not a form of coercion ?

It depends on the informal rules and expectations of the two parties as they became "girlfriend-boyfriend," an act which is also an exchange. Coercion after a voluntary exchange can be acceptable and would not render the previous exchange involuntary, but it depends on whether coercion was agreed to or not during the initial agreement/exchange. For example, when I join the gym, let's say I go around screaming like a mad man, scaring my fellow customers, and having a jolly good time waving around my knife. Obviously, this breaks some rules, and we both reasonably assumed that abnormal and aggressive behavior within the gym was unacceptable. Then, they'll enforce that rule either by having the private security or the police coerce me in order to leave.

There was coercion! But you're witnessing the enforcement of a law which was agreed to--upon the time of the exchange. I'd argue that it was implicitly understood that such an informal/formal rule (i.e. not being a crazy person in the gym/committing (verbal) assault) was agreed upon. Of course, if they enforced the rule by shooting me in the head and killing my family, then they would have breached the contract. No one in their right mind would expect such a rule to be enforced by threat of death to oneself and family. Voluntary exchanges which may involve coercion hinge upon the gray area of implied consent.

Either an exchange (with its underlying agreement) is voluntary or involuntary--regardless of the role of coercion. The distinction between "voluntary" and "involuntary" is clear, but this distinction depends on the formal and informal rules involved and whether or not explicit and/or implied consent was given. It doesn't make sense to say that Exchange A was 73.5% voluntary.

[nietzsche]

The answers are obvious but they are helpful to open the eyes of those who haven't seen it like that.

However, the point that remains is how to organize those services that are actually of service in a free market. BBS has pointed out in the past that he thinks those services can be provided without the need of a self-imposing government. My imagination can fly and come up with solutions, but the possibility of those scenarios happening seems far from coming into reality.

How do you make roads? This is an easy perhaps, tolls. But what about security and protection? This is a complicated one, IMO.

Long ago I read a little book called Sovereign Individual or something like that, don't remember much of it except that the author says in the future cities will be like companies, and will offer their services to whatever citizen of the world wants to live in them. That's an interest concept, free market in cities, perhaps it already exist in some way but the possibility of sovereing cities seem exciting.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Voluntary" is an absolutism. Either something is a voluntary act or it is an involuntary act. If it's an involuntary act, it can have varying degrees of involuntariness (i.e. slavery, servitude, compromise, contract commitment, etc.). There cannot be varying degrees of volunteerism.

"Death" is an absolutism. Either something is dead or it is alive. If it's alive, it can have varying degrees of life (i.e. vitality, coma, etc.). There cannot be varying degrees of death.

By this standard aren't we left with very few things (if any) as being voluntary?

Buying your kid a McDonalds - voluntary?
Well if you factor in the cost you would incur if you didn't buy it i.e. your kid having a tantrum in the middle of the store, then there is some element of coercion - involuntary
Going on holiday to Paris - voluntary?
Maybe you really wanna just stay home and engage into a sleep/eat/watch TV marathon, but what about the fact that the neighbors went to Vienna last summer? Will staying home be interpreted by all your friends as financial troubles ? Not to mention what the wife is going to say when you mention your vacation plans to her. - again some elements of coercion are present

Sax makes a reasonable dodge move (which can be legit when categorizing or specifying phenomena), but let's tackle your argument head-on.

So, the chance that the child may whine because it did not get McDonalds is (a) directly involved in that McDonald's exchange and (b) the child's temper tantrum equals 'making a threat involving physical violence'? We're talking about people with guns, and bureaucracies monitoring and enforcing taxation with the use of force. The child, as you've framed this exchange, is not exerting physical violence, but let's suppose for the sake of argument that his temper-tantrum is physical violence.

And so on and so forth. Our decisions almost always have some external factors constraining them and by the strictest definition are therefore not voluntary.
So then, to maintain the dichotomy you have to draw some arbitrary line. Like if this decision is influenced 90% by internal factors and 10% by external ones it's voluntary. This arbitrary line seems unsatisfactory to me.

Internal or external constraining them? Scarcity constrains us, but does scarcity determine the alleged degree of 'voluntary-ness' in any exchange? No, 'course not. We've been talking about one exchange between two parties; you're talking about three unique parties and two exchanges.


Kid-Parent Exchange.
Kid says, "gimme McDonalds or I'll throw a tantrum." (Mom exchange McDonalds for the child's promise not to throw a tantrum).
This is involuntary--after we concede that "being verbally annoying as one's own child" is a correct example of physical violence.

McDonalds-Parent Exchange.
Mom gives order. McDonald's employee mentions the price of $5.37. Mom trades $5.37 for a Happy Meal.
This is voluntary.

When is McDonald's forcing the mom to buy the Happy Meal? We could be silly and add a different example where McDonald's bribes the kid to behave this way, but that's different (it's fraudulent). The kid is the problem, and that Kid-Parent exchange is explained in further detail here.

[BigBallinStalin]

1.Yes
2.No
3.Yes, if you choose to continue to live there.
4." "
5.Yes, if you willingly lived there up until you were drafted.

You're assuming a framework where the king or liberal democracy have unquestioned rights to your land or personhood, which is therefore not voluntary by definition. If, in cases of 4 and 5, they are truly democratic gov'ts, imposing taxes or conscription upon you is counter to a gov't of free individuals, i.e. their threat of force (which I assume is there should one not yield) makes the situation not voluntary and is, in fact, authoritarian.

-TG

Since the questions were not very explicit in the first place I did the best with the information I had. If the questions become more specific I may change my answers. How can you answer those questions as they are without assuming one thing or another? Besides, I consider a condition in which you are free to leave yet decide to remain as inherently voluntary.

Then please list your assumptions which you imposed on the examples (nothing wrong with that). I'm wondering what assumptions you used in order to justify your choices.

Wtf, that's a lot of work to actually write out...
Sigh. Ok.

2. I'm assuming that the gangsters will "whack" you if you don't pay/try to leave.
3.You have the freedom to leave this Kingdom. The kingdom is more or less satisfactory to you since you haven't left yet. So if you don't actually own your own property, etc., you're ok with this exchange, else you would have left for greener pastures. I suppose you could be forced to live in this Kingdom and not want to stay in which it would be an involuntary exchange but that's just not what I imagined.
4.Basically the same as #3 only it's a different framework. I would add that for either #3 or #4 it's understood that if you aren't old enough to make these decisions for yourself, your guardians are. That's just how it goes.

Basically, I think that if you receive the services of a society and you have the option to leave then it's a voluntary exchange. If you are being forced against your will to stay in a situation that you don't think is worth it, it's involuntary. If you're being forced to pay the piper for your receipt of services, it's still voluntary even if you don't like it.

Let's be logically consistent with your approach. "If I have the choice of leaving place X, then the exchange is voluntary. With the bandits, I can choose to leave! Hey, it's MY house and 'MY' wife and whatever, but since I can choose to leave, then the exchange was voluntary."

What's wrong with that approach?
(You can justify any use of force in order to extract wealth from others. Imagine a robber who enters people's homes and aims a gun at their heads. According to your logic, he would offer a 'voluntary' choice: either pay the robber or leave your house. That's involuntary, and with this standard, #2-#4 are involuntary.



Since #5 involves a risky occupation and the tinge of slavery (compulsory labor), such an exchange would require an actual contract--to drive out the implied consent by making it explicit. Here's a reductio ad absurdum: Suppose you have a house on the river, which a corporation pollutes to an extent that is proven to be harmful to your health over a long duration, so you tell them to stop. They offer you a 'voluntary' exchange: either vacate your property or accept our pollution.


The government doesn't own you, your own property; otherwise, you're a slave. Nor does the government own your other property. With property rights comes "legitimate title transfers" in exchanges which hinge upon formal/informal rules, i.e. an agreement. A component of any exchange is contract law which can involve implied consent, but for serious exchanges, e.g. joining a war, a formal contract and your signature would be reasonably required.)

Think of it this way: would you care to argue that agreements as serious as being drafted and paying taxes "fees" throughout your life and after death do not require a formal contract, but borrowing $1000 for a car requires a formal contract?

[BigBallinStalin]

And for those who stated "unless free to leave" should be aware of some facts.

One cannot just renounce their citizenship. There are conditions, in the US at least, I speak for no other country. In the US you must go through a process. There is a fee involved, $450 you must pay if you wish to renounce your citizenship and your renunciation is not automatic.
Also, for those who renounce their citizenship there, in addition to the fee that must be paid, there is also a tax that can be imposed.
Also, the US is the only nation in the world that taxes not according to residency, but rather according to citizenship. So unless you actually renounce your citizenship you are still subject to the taxes and fees that the US deems you are to pay, you can't just simply live in another country to escape the involuntary exchanges in any of BBS' examples. You can even still be drafted even if you've never set foot in the US if you are a US citizenship.

The only way to escape these involuntary exchanges is to renounce one's citizenship and leave the country, which isn't free by to do by any means. It'll cost ya.

There was once a time when there was no cost associated with renouncing one's citizenship, but those days are long gone. There is a specific process you must go by and it takes months and you still might not be allowed to proceed. If it is deemed you are attempting to renounce your citizenship for the purpose of escaping the very involuntary exchanges that BBS noted, you will not be allowed to do so and will be committing a crime of which you can be fined and jailed.

You are not "free to leave".

So you should all consider that, at the very least.

Good point, and it's been missing from the dissenters' arguments.


The bandit brandishes his guns and gives me a 'choice'. Either pay him $100 in taxes per week or pay $450 him now, incur >$450 in costs in leaving (selling your stuff if you can in time--which you have to pay sales tax for), then wait awhile, and then finally be allowed to leave. Sounds like the Mafia frisked me down while I 'voluntary' chose to leave!

That's still an involuntary exchange, but it hinges on whether or not I agreed to a condition. Did I previously agree to a such a consequence? Of course not. Did I sign anything with the liberal democracy before they draft or tax me? Of course not. #2-#5 are clearly involuntary.

[Funkyterrance]

Let's be logically consistent with your approach. "If I have the choice of leaving place X, then the exchange is voluntary. With the bandits, I can choose to leave! Hey, it's MY house and 'MY' wife and whatever, but since I can choose to leave, then the exchange was voluntary."

What's wrong with that approach?
(You can justify any use of force in order to extract wealth from others. Imagine a robber who enters people's homes and aims a gun at their heads. According to your logic, he would offer a 'voluntary' choice: either pay the robber or leave your house. That's involuntary, and with this standard, #2-#4 are involuntary.

I've more or less evolved my thoughts regarding my initial response to these questions further into the thread but I don't mind going back and looking at it again in light of these advancements.
The difference between the robber holding a gun to your head and leaving the country is that your home/house or whatever actually belongs to you personally and so staying on your own property is not any sort of privilege and the responsibility of upkeep of your own property is solely yours. A country or some such thing is shared by many as well as usually providing some level of safety which would be more or less impossible on one's own. A person living as an island is extremely vulnerable. So, if you are a member of a society, any society, you are most likely benefiting from this membership and in essence "owe" whatever that society deems is a fair price to pay for this level of safety. On your personal property none of this applies. So, leaving a country/society is voluntary while leaving one's personal property within a society that they wish to stay is involuntary.[/quote]

Since #5 involves a risky occupation and the tinge of slavery (compulsory labor), such an exchange would require an actual contract--to drive out the implied consent by making it explicit. Here's a reductio ad absurdum: Suppose you have a house on the river, which a corporation pollutes to an extent that is proven to be harmful to your health over a long duration, so you tell them to stop. They offer you a 'voluntary' exchange: either vacate your property or accept our pollution.

I'm assuming the risk of being drafted is an understood cost of remaining a member of said society/government so in my mind it's completely voluntary. I realize you're making the case that the government got the society into the predicament that is calling people to war but as I said, if there is knowledge of the power of the government to draft you then you've already accepted this cost, whether or not the government decides to collect.

The government doesn't own you, your own property; otherwise, you're a slave. Nor does the government own your other property. With property rights comes "legitimate title transfers" in exchanges which hinge upon formal/informal rules, i.e. an agreement. A component of any exchange is contract law which can involve implied consent, but for serious exchanges, e.g. joining a war, a formal contract and your signature would be reasonably required.)

Think of it this way: would you care to argue that agreements as serious as drafts do not require a formal contract, but borrowing $1000 for a car requires a formal contract?

When you are 18 or whatever you receive something in the mail letting you know that you have to register for the draft. You've already collected, for 18 years, the benefits of living in a society that could ask you to fight for whatever the country deems necessary. If you are never called then you basically got a "freebie" in that department.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's be logically consistent with your approach. "If I have the choice of leaving place X, then the exchange is voluntary. With the bandits, I can choose to leave! Hey, it's MY house and 'MY' wife and whatever, but since I can choose to leave, then the exchange was voluntary."

What's wrong with that approach?
(You can justify any use of force in order to extract wealth from others. Imagine a robber who enters people's homes and aims a gun at their heads. According to your logic, he would offer a 'voluntary' choice: either pay the robber or leave your house. That's involuntary, and with this standard, #2-#4 are involuntary.

I've more or less evolved my thoughts regarding my initial response to these questions further into the thread but I don't mind going back and looking at it again in light of these advancements.
The difference between the robber holding a gun to your head and leaving the country is that your home/house or whatever actually belongs to you personally and so staying on your own property is not any sort of privilege and the responsibility of upkeep of your own property is solely yours. A country or some such thing is shared by many as well as usually providing some level of safety which would be more or less impossible on one's own. A person living as an island is extremely vulnerable. So, if you are a member of a society, any society, you are most likely benefiting from this membership and in essence "owe" whatever that society deems is a fair price to pay for this level of safety. On your personal property none of this applies. So, leaving a country/society is voluntary while leaving one's personal property within a society that they wish to stay is involuntary.

I've read your posts, and you've been making the same essential points.


FT, if the State via the use of force prevents competitors from providing similar services, then they're still acting like bandits in a turf war. Within a liberal democracy, if you disagree with the nonexistent contract, you can't setup your own government (so your "living on an island" argument becomes moot, nor do we "share" a country. That's an imaginative assumption). Furthermore, there is no contract. You have explicitly agreed to nothing, and no one here has convincingly stated that implied consent was given. Under these actual circumstances, if an organization coerces you into making an exchange, then it's involuntary.


The bandit brandishes his guns and gives me a 'choice'. Either pay him $100 in taxes per week or pay $450 him now, incur >$450 in costs in leaving (selling your stuff if you can in time--which you have to pay sales tax for), then wait awhile, and then finally be allowed to leave. Sounds like the Mafia frisked me down while I 'voluntary' chose to leave!

That's still an involuntary exchange, but it hinges on whether or not I agreed to a condition. Did I previously agree to a such a consequence? Of course not. Did I sign anything with the liberal democracy before they draft or tax me? Of course not. #2-#5 are clearly involuntary.

Since #5 involves a risky occupation and the tinge of slavery (compulsory labor), such an exchange would require an actual contract--to drive out the implied consent by making it explicit. Here's a reductio ad absurdum: Suppose you have a house on the river, which a corporation pollutes to an extent that is proven to be harmful to your health over a long duration, so you tell them to stop. They offer you a 'voluntary' exchange: either vacate your property or accept our pollution.

I'm assuming the risk of being drafted is an understood cost of remaining a member of said society/government so in my mind it's completely voluntary. I realize you're making the case that the government got the society into the predicament that is calling people to war but as I said, if there is knowledge of the power of the government to draft you then you've already accepted this cost, whether or not the government decides to collect.

One could argue the same for the bandits, and now you're back to agreeing that if the bandits drafted you, that's voluntary (which is absurd).

The government doesn't own you, your own property; otherwise, you're a slave. Nor does the government own your other property. With property rights comes "legitimate title transfers" in exchanges which hinge upon formal/informal rules, i.e. an agreement. A component of any exchange is contract law which can involve implied consent, but for serious exchanges, e.g. joining a war, a formal contract and your signature would be reasonably required.)

Think of it this way: would you care to argue that agreements as serious as drafts do not require a formal contract, but borrowing $1000 for a car requires a formal contract?

When you are 18 or whatever you receive something in the mail letting you know that you have to register for the draft. You've already collected, for 18 years, the benefits of living in a society that could ask you to fight for whatever the country deems necessary. If you are never called then you basically got a "freebie" in that department.

So... in the contract it states that if I use or don't use services for X amount of time, I must join that organization's military whenever it jumps into a war? No, there's nothing in the invisible contract which states that. FT, I have a deal. I'll offer you for 20 years my toenails clippings, but you must pay me 10% of your income--regardless of your use of my toenail clippings---OH, and you'll have to serve in my army whenever I want you to. Does that make sense? No, but when we add the word "government" in there, all of our reasonably held positions melt away; we suddenly invent these imaginative assumptions and creative contracts out of thin air.

Also, "the Selective Service System is a means by which the United States government maintains information on those potentially subject to military conscription. Most male U.S. citizens and male immigrant non-citizens between the ages of 18 and 25 are required by law to have registered within 30 days of their 18th birthdays (wiki)". Required by law. It's not a voluntary choice when made a party threatens to enforce its demand that you sign up for the draft, nor did anyone agree to this beforehand--nor does this contract mention one's consent with all the other ridiculous laws and taxes. If that was a contract examined in court, it would be thrown out--and no one would accept it until further expectations of both parties were clearly mentioned. (ha! Even male immigrant non-citizens (NON-CITIZENS) must comply. Non-citizens!)


Let's examine these two types of contracts: $1000 loan for a car, and the Invisible Contract for the draft and taxation for life and after death regardless of one's proportional use of goods by organization X, which exerts a monopoly on the provision and/or control of such goods. Which contract is more serious? And which do you think would require explicit consent in written form?

[BigBallinStalin]

Has anyone ever wondered why the government will not agree to allowing you the ability to apportion your total taxes into particular services?
(e.g. 10% into military, 30% into education, etc.)

It would make things so much easier because people with their tax money could choose the services that they expect to be best, thus the government can now know what is best for the people.

But this would never happen. Why? Because the government takes your money for its own purposes, and your consent really doesn't matter (because there really was no contract which you signed that stated the duties of both parties). See ya at the polls! I'm sure they'll offer you some serious legislation to consider!--compared to the amount they control.

[_sabotage_]

When someone offers only complaints without solution, they offer nothing.

[Funkyterrance]

Has anyone ever wondered why the government will not agree to allowing you the ability to apportion your total taxes into particular services?
(e.g. 10% into military, 30% into education, etc.)

It would make things so much easier because people with their tax money could choose the services that they expect to be best, thus the government can now know what is best for the people.

But this would never happen. Why? Because the government takes your money for its own purposes, and your consent really doesn't matter (because there really was no contract which you signed that stated the duties of both parties). See ya at the polls! I'm sure they'll offer you some serious legislation to consider!--compared to the amount they control.

The problem is if you leave it up to the people how much they are going to contribute to x,y and z they will just apportion to whatever branch they think is in their best interest but in reality the average person doesn't know what that really is since your average person is lazy and not motivated to find the actual truth. A "government" is much more likely to see all the cards and therefore more apt to make the best decisions as to where the money ought to go.

[_sabotage_]

If people could apportion their money more directly to their interest, departments would have to become competitive and therefore efficient, more peoples demands would be met. For example, if I knew that I could directly invest in a community based project by directing my taxes at it if it were approved, then I could get more closely involved with it and make its outcome to our heart's desire. It would also make them more accountable to the specific tax-provider for the project and make projects more community based by letting people take more ownership of the desired outcome they expect from their tax dollars.

We already have this though. We already let people vote with their money, but the votes are only between people who have multi-billion dollar interests. Us 99% here don't get that vote. We get to gossip. We don't get to change a damn thing.

So why not give ourselves that vote? At the moment we imagine two competing sides of a vote, but whichever we actually get is serviced in the same manner. We build up these monstrosities of incompetence, self-inflating, entrenched bureaus and then take them as gospel.

I. Suggest we form a charity. Get each of the 99% as members and go from there. We will have huge lobbying power. We just need to start with a few matters of framework.

First we should find some things we can all agree on, easy.
Second we should find a way to see if we agree.
Third, we give everyone what they want even if we don't agree.
Then, we take the demands to the government in a body.

[Funkyterrance]

I've read your posts, and you've been making the same essential points.


FT, if the State via the use of force prevents competitors from providing similar services, then they're still acting like bandits in a turf war. Within a liberal democracy, if you disagree with the nonexistent contract, you can't setup your own government (so your "living on an island" argument becomes moot, nor do we "share" a country. That's an imaginative assumption). Furthermore, there is no contract. You have explicitly agreed to nothing, and no one here has convincingly stated that implied consent was given. Under these actual circumstances, if an organization coerces you into making an exchange, then it's involuntary.

I liken a country to a public park. You are free to roam about within the guidelines of the park, there are certain areas of the park where you are not allowed(utilities, etc.), you can't plop yourself on the blanket of someone else without permission(private), and the cost of the upkeep of the park is more or less paid for by all. If you choose not to visit the park you aren't benefiting from it personally except for the fact that you can visit it anytime you wish if you feel so inclined. While you may argue that the person who never visits the park in their whole life is getting short-changed, well then just imagine that you live on that blanket in the park and now you have an even closer analogy.

The bandit brandishes his guns and gives me a 'choice'. Either pay him $100 in taxes per week or pay $450 him now, incur >$450 in costs in leaving (selling your stuff if you can in time--which you have to pay sales tax for), then wait awhile, and then finally be allowed to leave. Sounds like the Mafia frisked me down while I 'voluntary' chose to leave!

That's still an involuntary exchange, but it hinges on whether or not I agreed to a condition. Did I previously agree to a such a consequence? Of course not. Did I sign anything with the liberal democracy before they draft or tax me? Of course not. #2-#5 are clearly involuntary.

Of course there will always be a cost involved in moving if not only convenience but your bandit example implies that you never benefited from the bandit previously. In the example of leaving the country, kingdom, etc., you've already accepted something in your time spent there thus far so the bandit coming to your house and giving you an ultimatum is just part of a greater agreement that you have already entered into. You can't decide now that you don't want to associate with the bandit because it's too late, you already have and you knew that this could happen. You just figured the bandit was off robbing other people and the odds that you would be next were slim to none.

One could argue the same for the bandits, and now you're back to agreeing that if the bandits drafted you, that's voluntary (which is absurd).

So it's not ridiculous to imagine the bandits drafting you if you've already reaped the benefits of their presence (use your imagination) and now they are telling you that you need to pay up in the form of services. You knew full well that the bandits were part of the framework of your town and were benefiting from their "contributions" but you just assumed that they would never call on you to repay them so you stayed in town. You also had opportunity to move two towns over numerous times but you decided to take your chances on this one because it was more convenient.

So... in the contract it states that if I use or don't use services for X amount of time, I must join that organization's military whenever it jumps into a war? No, there's nothing in the invisible contract which states that. FT, I have a deal. I'll offer you for 20 years my toenails clippings, but you must pay me 10% of your income--regardless of your use of my toenail clippings---OH, and you'll have to serve in my army whenever I want you to. Does that make sense? No, but when we add the word "government" in there, all of our reasonably held positions melt away; we suddenly invent these imaginative assumptions and creative contracts out of thin air.

Also, "the Selective Service System is a means by which the United States government maintains information on those potentially subject to military conscription. Most male U.S. citizens and male immigrant non-citizens between the ages of 18 and 25 are required by law to have registered within 30 days of their 18th birthdays (wiki)". Required by law. It's not a voluntary choice when made a party threatens to enforce its demand that you sign up for the draft, nor did anyone agree to this beforehand--nor does this contract mention one's consent with all the other ridiculous laws and taxes. If that was a contract examined in court, it would be thrown out--and no one would accept it until further expectations of both parties were clearly mentioned. (ha! Even male immigrant non-citizens (NON-CITIZENS) must comply. Non-citizens!)


Let's examine these two types of contracts: $1000 loan for a car, and the Invisible Contract for the draft and taxation for life and after death regardless of one's proportional use of goods by organization X, which exerts a monopoly on the provision and/or control of such goods. Which contract is more serious? And which do you think would require explicit consent in written form?

So it would be voluntary if when you turned 18 or whatever and you were required to register for the draft you could either agree to sign or leave the country/be killed? In my eyes this is just a formality as it's pretty much understood. Anyway, how are you going to measure how much each person's proportional use of any organization is? Your analogy of toenail clippings I think is way off. If you're going to make an analogy about the privilege of being a member of a society that protects you from most ills you ought to compare it to the air that you breath. You are benefiting from these organizations in ways you don't even realize!

[Funkyterrance]

FT, you're joking right? If people could apportion their money more directly to their interest, departments would have to become competitive and therefore efficient, more peoples demands would be met, etc. It would also make them more accountable to the specific tax-provider for the project and make projects more community based by letting people take more ownership of the desired outcome they expect from their tax dollars.

Again, you're assuming an informed public which is a highly debatable assumption. From my experience many people believe a lot of what they see on television to be somehow close to reality and tend to base their day to day activities on what they view there. Do these actions reflect a group of people who will do what is in their actual best interest left to their own devices?
You may or may not be a more or less rational and informed person but if you are I am fairly certain you are in the minority. There are far too many sheep out there for a system such as this to work properly.

[_sabotage_]

So out of their security you are trading their freedom? Oh, I think I heard someone say that if you will trade the second, you deserve neither.

[Funkyterrance]

So out of their security you are trading their freedom? Oh, I think I heard someone say that if you will trade the second, you deserve neither.

When you are born you are nothing without someone to take care of you. Once you are strong enough to take care of yourself you are free to leave. You all are implying this initial safety is your God-given right which is horseshit.

[_sabotage_]

No, I'm saying I never asked you to keep me safe. And yet you have decided that you are allowed to rule over me:

No freedom, because of my securing you. How's that different from saying your my prisoner?

[Funkyterrance]

No, I'm saying I never asked you to keep me safe. And yet you have decided that you are allowed to rule over me:

No freedom, because of my securing you. How's that different from saying your my prisoner?

The only thing securing you is your desire to remain a part of the society as it were. You do have a choice, it's just an exchange you seem to prefer to continue. So essentially it's like some mental institutions where you can check out whenever you like but while you remain you have to abide by the rules. One of the rules happens to be that if you're called upon by the administration while you are in said facility you must comply or suffer consequences. It's all part of the "contract" so you can't just up and leave the facility once admin calls on you. Your freedom is not being restricted, you're just being held accountable for your agreement.

[_sabotage_]

The thing is you have the agreement the wrong way around. We the people are the group that made the agreement. We the people should get to agree or not. You are suggesting that we have no say, which means no freedom. At the same time we spend trillions around the world promoting "freedom" by attacking people and give the money we spend to the vice president's company.

We then set-up "freedom" pyramids of naked Iraqi's and falsify hero stories about our soldiers such as the NFL guy. If anyone approved either of those things on their tax form, take that money out of their pocket. I didn't. I wish I could say I could stop it from happening all together, but I supported Obama in 2008 and Guantanamo is still running. But at least don't make me be involved in paying for torture.

I don't believe the government has not created the hostilities towards us nor put us under more fire by taking the imaginary fight to them. It all started with a few nice looking jets going into Afghan 11 years ago, we then approved a war in Iraq for what? For the stability of the nation as our friend? If we wanted them to be our friend why have we blown them up?

But that's my opinion. They have high paid analyst on TV telling you about all the intricacies of spending trillions of dollars in a thousand different images of things exploding so others are cool with it. Take their money, let them make the conscious decision and decide what they want.

People don't know what's good for them because they are lazy you say. Then what the f*ck are we doing at schools? We are spending 13 years not telling kids whats good for them? And then pay shit-tons going to school and we don't know what's good for us? Only the dick's who make big dollars know that. So, stfu and listen to that guy on TV, he'll tell you what oyu need to know.