Merit-based citizenship and voluntary taxation

[rusvik]

Just a though for the minarchists and libertarians here.

Say you had a society with strong negative freedom rights (i.e. the right to be left alone) by law, which were for everyone on the territory regardless of their ethinicity, language and financial standing.

What if it was possible to attain positive rights such as voting rights, minimum welfare, running for office, only if you either contributed through taxes or through voluntary security work (army and police).

With this setup, you could solve the challenge of security, law and basic welfare (roads, courts, poor houses), without forcing anyone to pay taxes. Simply, you would not be a citizen and allowed to vote for laws unless you either paid taxes or served the nation through militrary or police. But the laws of personal property still apply even if you're not a citizen.

I believe this is very similar to early Greek societies and I honestly think these kind of citystate structures will become a lot more common as technology reduces the need for scale.

 

[pinchyfingers]

You're scenario institutionalizes the sort of political order that arises organically in communities. I live in a 2 square mile town with a population of 10,000. These 10,000 people are divided into numerous different social units: neighborhoods, charity organizations, businesses, clubs, churches, etc. Each of these units has an internal order depending on its values, and a way of interacting with the other units based on what works for them. So, people who are good neighbors by their block's standards will earn respect and influence, social clubs that help the community will earn respect and influence. There is no reason to take this complex system that evolves and grows, and try to direct it via legislation.

Attempting to codify naturally occurring political systems into law is analogous to instituting a command economy. It turns out that the system that works best is too complex to fully understand and predict, and even if we could understand it, who has the right to determine what other people should do and how they should live? Things work out just fine if people are left to take care of themselves. Institutionalizing societal organization only serves those willing to prosper by corruption and abuse of the government. For all other purposes, the government is less effective than just letting people figure it out for themselves.

 

[lukep]

inb4 history lessons from Guerilla and JakeStratham...

I'm sure it's been done before, and although I can't say exactly who did that (definitely somewhere around greece) off the top of my head, I can already see from your explaination what the outcome would be... Like democracy, the "haves" would control the laws and the "have nots" would find themselves getting more and more impoverished until they throw a revolution.

 

[amateursurgeon]

Just a though for the minarchists and libertarians here.

Say you had a society with strong negative freedom rights (i.e. the right to be left alone) by law, which were for everyone on the territory regardless of their ethinicity, language and financial standing.

What if it was possible to attain positive rights such as voting rights, minimum welfare, running for office, only if you either contributed through taxes or through voluntary security work (army and police).

With this setup, you could solve the challenge of security, law and basic welfare (roads, courts, poor houses), without forcing anyone to pay taxes. Simply, you would not be a citizen and allowed to vote for laws unless you either paid taxes or served the nation through militrary or police. But the laws of personal property still apply even if you're not a citizen.

I believe this is very similar to early Greek societies and I honestly think these kind of citystate structures will become a lot more common as technology reduces the need for scale.

This would share another attribute in common with Greek societies - oppression of women, unless you came up with a clever way round the fact that women who are doing unpaid childcare (and hence can't contribute financially, but are performing a role essential to the continuation of society) would be stripped of all positive rights.

This isn't a problem in the situation pinchyfingers describes, because tacit social organisation is subtle enough to allow for that, but it would be very difficult to codify.

 

[rusvik]

The entire reason for this setup is to keep the have-nots from plundering the haves. But the have-nots are still protected by strict negative freedom rights. And since you become a have by joining the army, the have-nots do not have violent force. It would not be a society where you raise your 8 illegitimate children on welfare though.

 

[rusvik]

This would share another attribute in common with Greek societies - oppression of women, unless you came up with a clever way round the fact that women who are doing unpaid childcare (and hence can't contribute financially, but are performing a role essential to the continuation of society) would be stripped of all positive rights.

This isn't a problem in the situation pinchyfingers describes, because tacit social organisation is subtle enough to allow for that, but it would be very difficult to codify.

Let me be honest and say that female voting rights is probably a big reason of why western countries suck. Women vote overwhelmingly left.

I don't see a problem. You could just make it so that the positive rights were attributed to a family - being defined as the person and the persons spouse and children.

Again, this wouldn't be a state for losers but it would be a fair, just state.

 

[erect]

Let me be honest and say that female voting rights is probably a big reason of why western countries suck. Women vote overwhelmingly left.

Let me be honest and say that female voting rights is probably a big reason of why western countries suck. Women vote overwhelmingly left.

Let me be honest and say that female voting rights is probably a big reason of why western countries suck. Women vote overwhelmingly left.

Hello my brother, you fucking nailed it. It's not just that they're bleeding hearts ... well, yeah it is. That nurturing thing they have going on in their ovaries forces us to pay for security blankets for EVERYONE everywhere. If we could just help them out ....

It also keeps everyone with bad hair out of office.

 

[thehobbster]

Just a though for the minarchists and libertarians here.

Say you had a society with strong negative freedom rights (i.e. the right to be left alone) by law, which were for everyone on the territory regardless of their ethinicity, language and financial standing.

What if it was possible to attain positive rights such as voting rights, minimum welfare, running for office, only if you either contributed through taxes or through voluntary security work (army and police).

With this setup, you could solve the challenge of security, law and basic welfare (roads, courts, poor houses), without forcing anyone to pay taxes. Simply, you would not be a citizen and allowed to vote for laws unless you either paid taxes or served the nation through militrary or police. But the laws of personal property still apply even if you're not a citizen.

I believe this is very similar to early Greek societies and I honestly think these kind of citystate structures will become a lot more common as technology reduces the need for scale.

I saw Starship Troopers too! Great movie!

 

[rusvik]

I saw Starship Troopers too! Great movie!

Hahaha.. so much win. Starship Troopers is excellent political satire, but it seems like this aspect of the movie went completely unnoticed by most people.

 

[rusvik]

Hello my brother, you fucking nailed it. It's not just that they're bleeding hearts ... well, yeah it is. That nurturing thing they have going on in their ovaries forces us to pay for security blankets for EVERYONE everywhere. If we could just help them out ....

It also keeps everyone with bad hair out of office.

God bless women and their nurturing qualities (which is becoming increasingly scarce in modern society), but women do have a tendency to emotionally extrapolate from individuals to society. It's good and applaudable to help a fuckup on a personal level but it's not scalable so to speak.

 

[greenleaves]

Just a though for the minarchists and libertarians here.

Say you had a society with strong negative freedom rights (i.e. the right to be left alone) by law, which were for everyone on the territory regardless of their ethinicity, language and financial standing.

What if it was possible to attain positive rights such as voting rights, minimum welfare, running for office, only if you either contributed through taxes or through voluntary security work (army and police).

With this setup, you could solve the challenge of security, law and basic welfare (roads, courts, poor houses), without forcing anyone to pay taxes. Simply, you would not be a citizen and allowed to vote for laws unless you either paid taxes or served the nation through militrary or police. But the laws of personal property still apply even if you're not a citizen.

I believe this is very similar to early Greek societies and I honestly think these kind of citystate structures will become a lot more common as technology reduces the need for scale.

Your belief would work if not for the nature of humans and ultimately, the nature of reality.

Power will continue to consolidate from its fragmented form for a good while longer; a trend that has been going on since 476AD. And any step back is just to countered by further steps forward (to consolidation). Like a tide, the waves go in and out, but overall, they go in when the tide is rising.

In the end, while we suffer from the inefficiencies intrinsic to large social structures, we also benefit from the economies of scale produced, which have allowed for the very technological medium we are using now.

 

[greenleaves]

Humans are weak. We need others to survive. A few are smart and most are really stupid. The really stupid want to use numbers take advantage of the smart. The smart want to use smarts to take advantage of the stupid. In the end, there will be a few smart on top and a vast majority of stupid below. Then, eventually, the smart will become inbred and detached from reality. Which will cause their own fall and give rise to a new generation of smart who are on top.

 

[rusvik]

Your belief would work if not for the nature of humans and ultimately, the nature of reality.

Power will continue to consolidate from its fragmented form for a good while longer; a trend that has been going on since 476AD

In the end, while we suffer from the inefficiencies intrinsic to large social structures, we also benefit from the economies of scale produced, which have allowed for the very technological medium we are using now.

I see two distinct movements battling it out at the present.

The old failing governments of size, who'se traditional monopoly on information have been the moral base of their violent powers, sort of like the Papal state (church) before the printing press. But now it's just the welfare states.

On the other hand you have the 'tech class' as I call it. People who are increasingly becoming more and more independent of government as they can do business and live everywhere. Basically, the modern tech entrepreneur. Technologies such as Bitcoin will increasingly challenge nationstates.

The old political elite is fully aware of this and they try to counter it by making it harder and harder to become location independent by merging states into unions like the EU, WHO, UN or Asean and similar.

Singapore and Hong Kong are essentially city states with very small governments and they prosper in this economy while old, government heavy states fail.

 

[SkyFire]

Humans are weak. We need others to survive. A few are smart and most are really stupid. The really stupid want to use numbers take advantage of the smart. The smart want to use smarts to take advantage of the stupid.

Well, that's bullshit. There are plenty of us who are highly intelligent and have no desire to take advantage of anyone.

 

[greenleaves]

I see two distinct movements battling it out at the present.

The old failing governments of size, who'se traditional monopoly on information have been the moral base of their violent powers, sort of like the Papal state (church) before the printing press. But now it's just the welfare states.

Failing governments? They hold more power than ever, and control a greater % of GDP than ever. You must be seeing different than I

On the other hand you have the 'tech class' as I call it. People who are increasingly becoming more and more independent of government as they can do business and live everywhere. Basically, the modern tech entrepreneur.

Err, we are more dependent than ever. You can't carry cash around, you MUST have electronic payments. And if your current country doesn't charge taxes to non-residents, wait till they do. It will happen. They want more power. They are restricting the power of the masses every day.

Technologies such as Bitcoin will increasingly challenge nationstates.

You drank Luke's coolaid? Bitcoin is virtually worthless. All the bicoin in the world couldn't buy you enough gas to run a county. And modern living is directly dependent on petroleum based products. (not just gas, plastics and other petro-chemical products)

The old political elite is fully aware of this and they try to counter it by making it harder and harder to become location independent by merging states into unions like the EU, WHO, UN or Asean and similar.

Singapore and Hong Kong are essentially city states with very small governments and they prosper in this economy while old, government heavy states fail.

No matter where you are, no matter what you do, you are paying taxes as long as oil is sold in dollars. Period. You can't get away. And Governts aren't failing. Lolz. If you believe that, they tricked you.

Oh, we got not money out one side of their mouth; approving infinite spending on the other. What most people don't get about the unpayable debts that exist, is that everyone looses if everyone collects and these numbers are ALL MADE UP.

Money doesn't exist per say. It is numbers, numbers used to partly measure people's power. Partly because mostly it is measured by offensive capacity.

And the numbers you hear aren't even real. They are an approximate. The value of everything fluctuates, and how you calculate it greatly influences the ultimate result.

 

[greenleaves]

Well, that's bullshit. There are plenty of us who are highly intelligent and have no desire to take advantage of anyone.

Have you tried to maximize sales? have you used any subconscious methods to increase sales? Maybe played with colors? made a font bigger?

Ask yourself, was I being honest by doing that? Did I make the disclaimer bigger, or smaller? Did i put in copy that attacks the weakness of my audience to increase my sales? Did I do ANYTHING that wasn't upfront to anyone?

The answer, if you are into business, is yes to at least some of these. And in that case, you took advantage of someone less smart than you. Someone who didn't understand that the exact combination of elements you presented are done so to drive sales, even if it isn't in the users interest to buy. Get over it. It is only natural that we take advantage of each other.

 

[VinBed]

Humans are weak. We need others to survive. A few are smart and most are really stupid. The really stupid want to use numbers take advantage of the smart. The smart want to use smarts to take advantage of the stupid. In the end, there will be a few smart on top and a vast majority of stupid below. Then, eventually, the smart will become inbred and detached from reality. Which will cause their own fall and give rise to a new generation of smart who are on top.

Mmm, I'd say you could divide humanity into the following categories:

1) People who lead others.
2) People who have the potential to lead, but do not lead anyone.
3) People who follow leaders, and want to be told what to do.
4) People who follow leaders, but do not want to be told what to do.

You can have smart people in all of these categories - but not every smart person has leadership qualities.

 

[lukep]

The entire reason for this setup is to keep the have-nots from plundering the haves. But the have-nots are still protected by strict negative freedom rights. And since you become a have by joining the army, the have-nots do not have violent force. It would not be a society where you raise your 8 illegitimate children on welfare though.

Of course you and I would benefit from this society over what we have today, but it still screws somebody. You've moved the slider to the right with this formula, which again I'd be more comfortable with but in the end it's not balanced and a bloody revolution would be 100% certain in time.

What's the point in playing this game if you're not trying to make a 100% balanced system?

I will say this for your formula: Upward mobility does seem easier for most than it is here. Overall I would indeed prefer it to what we have now, but not enough to fight for.

God bless women and their nurturing qualities (which is becoming increasingly scarce in modern society), but women do have a tendency to emotionally extrapolate from individuals to society. It's good and applaudable to help a fuckup on a personal level but it's not scalable so to speak.

Too late though. What's the point in talking about stuffing them back in the kitchen and hoping they get dumb again? The genie is out of the bottle and for most americans, fully in charge of the family as we speak.

Failing governments? They hold more power than ever, and control a greater % of GDP than ever. You must be seeing different than I

He is. And so am I.

We see countries riddled with debt to EPIC purportions, not able to even pay the INTEREST accruing each month without borrowing more money from the non-failing governments like China...

Only a complete moron could think that the USA and most of Europe can survive another 5-10 years like this. Luckly for obomba, we have no shortage of complete morons.

From yesterday's Soverign Man:

Undoubtedly, the Western hierarchy dominated by the United States is in a completely unsustainable situation. Across the West, national governments have obligations they simply cannot meet--both to their citizens and their creditors.

In the UK, national government borrowing is already 22% higher than at this same point last year, a record year for borrowing. Meanwhile, the UK's budget deficit for August hit a record high.

In France, the new government of Francois Hollande passed a 'historic' and 'austere' budget that is still posting a deficit of 3% of GDP. That's including a 75% tax on incomes exceeding one million euros.

In Japan, the government is mulling legislation that will fund 40% of the budget with 'deficit-financing' bonds.

In the United States, the government recently hit $16 trillion in debt about six weeks ago, after reaching the $15 trillion mark last November. It took 200 years to accumulate the first trillion in debt and 286 days to accumulate the most recent trillion.

Each of these countries has a debt level that exceeds 90% of GDP-- the historic point of no return. More importantly, each of these countries also has to borrow money simply to pay interest on money they've already borrowed.

This is important because it makes the problems multiple. At the beginning of the 1780s, the French monarchy was spending around 30% of tax revenue to service its debt. Eight years later when the revolution began, they were spending 62%.

The next 26-years in France were filled with internal civil war, external war with Austria and Prussia, hyperinflation, crime, social unrest, and Robespierre's genocidal dictatorship.

In the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire faced an even steeper financial decline. In just 11-years, the Ottoman central government went from spending 17% of its tax revenue on interest payments to spending over 52% of its tax revenue on interest payments. Then came default, in just eleven years.

In the US, debt service is also rising. According to the Government Accountability Office's figures, the US government was spending 9% of revenue to service the debt in 2002. Throughout most of the last decade, in fact, the US government spent roughly 9% of its tax revenue on debt service.

But in 2009, the figure hit 9.75%, then 10.5% in 2010, then 11.5% in 2011. For the fiscal year that just closed on September 30, the Bureau of Public Debt reported cumulative interest expense of $375.8 billion on income of $2.45 trillion. This is a rate of 15.3%. See the trend?

But it's not just debt burdens that are problematic. 'Rich' countries in the West are also rapidly debasing their currencies, spawning tomes of regulatory impediments, restricting the freedoms of their citizens, aggressively expanding the powers of the state, and engaging in absurd military folly from Libya to the South China Sea.

Once again, this is not the first time history has seen such conditions. In our own lifetimes, we've seen the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the tragi-comical hyperinflation in Zimbabwe, and the unraveling of Argentina's millennial crisis. Plus we can study what happened when empires from the past collapsed.

The conditions are nearly identical. Is our civilization so different that we are immune to the consequences?

It is not. Only those sold dreams by politicians could believe it is.

You drank Luke's coolaid? Bitcoin is virtually worthless. All the bicoin in the world couldn't buy you enough gas to run a county. And modern living is directly dependent on petroleum based products. (not just gas, plastics and other petro-chemical products)

BitCoins go for about $12 now and are divisible into 21 quadrillion or so units, even larger than the current amount of USD, braintrust.

I won't argue that they will replace the dollar, but at least for the next few years, they actually are much safer than the USD.

No matter where you are, no matter what you do, you are paying taxes as long as oil is sold in dollars.

Well why didn't you say so sooner? Taxes are now done for! Thank goodness!

In case you haven't heard, China, India, Iran, Brazil, and others (the majority of the planet) are all starting to trade their own currencies for oil. The Petrodollar has fallen.

Money doesn't exist per say. It is numbers, numbers used to partly measure people's power. Partly because mostly it is measured by offensive capacity.

You are speaking here about a tiny little period in history that looks like a retard sneezed in the grand scheme of our history. It can't survive as fiat currencies have NEVER survived for long before.

...And each and every one of them died in exactly the same way we are witnessing the USD and Euro both tank today.

It shocks me that you can think the things you typed here today. Be very ashamed.

 

[Moxie]

Women vote overwhelmingly left.

The following tend to even more :

Blacks
Hispanics
Asians
18-29 year olds
Jews
City Residents

Exit Polls - Election Results 2008 - The New York Times


Women are much less likely to support war.

Men and Women’s Support For War: Accounting for the gender gap in public opinion