Quote from: DumbFruit on October 28, 2014, 02:44:55 PM

Quote from: rugrats on October 28, 2014, 06:00:37 AM

Also, your suggestion implies that altruism and altruistic people are holding back because someone else, i.e., the government, is doing it. That's not altruism. Altruism exists regardless of any circumstances.

Altruism exists whether or not the unfortunate party is being helped? Whether or not the unfortunate party is actually unfortunate? Whether or not the person knows about any kind of unfortunate circumstance that happened?

What do you mean that "Altruism exists regardless of circumstances"?

Quote from: rugrats on October 28, 2014, 06:00:37 AM

Suggesting that altruism will suddenly emerge in the absence of a government is, forgive my language, breathtakingly delusional.

Did you miss my post about Rockefeller? That man gave, of his own free will, more than you or any of your ancestors made in their entire lifetimes put together (Adjusted for inflation). That's not even including the incalculable benefit to mankind that his company was; Standard Oil.

Also, the basis of Democracy is that 51% of voters ultimately know what's best for the rest of us. For anything altruistic to come out of it, you have to presuppose that at least 51% of voters are altruistic. So you've already said that altruistic people already exist in vast quantities! I am not quite as optimistic as you are, but clearly you're a bit confused about which side of the fence you're on.

Quote from: rugrats on October 28, 2014, 06:00:37 AM

For the record, the welfare spending for the U.S. in 2014 will amount to $264.4 billion. That includes unemployment assistance, food programs, foster systems and many others. Walmart and Exxonmobil generate almost twice as much in revenue annually, and these two companies actually enjoy preferential tax rebates. As a percentage of GDP, the figure has been on a downward spiral for the past three decades.

If only we could get that spending to fall to 0% of GDP.

The point wasn't about spending in particular. The point is that our government overlords spend a tremendous amount of money and they have almost nothing to show for it. That maybe it's rational to think that the government could take care of what they claim under their sphere of influence given their colossal budget.

Quote from: rugrats on October 28, 2014, 06:09:07 AM

Quote from: HELP.org on October 27, 2014, 11:41:59 PM

Quote from: Krona Rev on October 27, 2014, 06:22:25 PM

Quote from: rugrats on October 27, 2014, 05:15:32 AM

Quote from: RonPaulBTC on October 26, 2014, 08:23:42 PM

Quote from: El Emperador on October 26, 2014, 05:43:14 PM

I think one of the strenghts of Bitcoin is that users are ideologically various.

I've never meet a Bitcoiner in real life that was perfectly okay with paying taxes.

We should meet up then, because I am absolutely "perfectly okay with paying taxes".

We can agree on this. I'm absolutely perfectly okay with you paying taxes. Pay all the taxes you want.

For most people it is not about paying taxes or not paying taxes, it is a matter of paying too much because much of the money is wasted.

As for taxes being too high the main problem with government is the incentives. There is no incentive to end things that are no longer needed. A government program can be started at the drop of a hat but it can be next to impossible to end a program when it is no longer beneficial. That asymmetry is the problem.

Exactly. The key is in finding an equilibrium and enhancing efficiency.

It's kind of surreal to read this. It's like looking at a man beat his slave and then saying, "You know, the problem here is asymmetry". I'd say, "I agree I suppose, but shouldn't we end slavery?"

Isn't that kind of the moral crux of the issue? Molyneux calls it the "gun in the room", akin to the elephant in the room. Sure we can have debates about whether or not we should send people out to murder dark skinned people in the far east, and sure it's totally fine to discuss whether or not we should put people away for life for having certain herbs in their pockets, but can we have the discussion about whether or not this entire political system is justified? Not among "polite" company.

What's worse is if you want to just be left alone on your own property. Men in silly blue costumes will come and take you away for not paying for permission to live on your own land, or maybe you weren't paying them "their cut" of your salary. Either way, that's enough to put you into a rape cage. Bizarre, immoral.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are suggesting that in the absence of taxes - which means that the government will not be able to provide financial aid to orphans - altruistic people will suddenly emerge to adopt and take care of these orphans?
What is stopping these altrustic people from adopting these orphans right now?
Altruism does not depend on any set circumstances before it can appear.

As per the Oxford Dictionary, altruism is defined as "Disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others".
Not "Disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others after certain conditions are met."
Altruism should mean that all of the 400,000 orphans that society as a whole do not want would be adopted by families annually - now.

Since the dawn of time, has this ever happened before? Has societies, collectively, voluntarily decide to adopt every orphan, provide assistance to single mothers, and care for their old, sick and handicapped? No, it hasn't - other than a few truly altruistic individuals, society has largely turned a blind eye to the plight of others.

I may have missed your post about Rockeller, but that merely weakens your argument. Rockefeller chose to be altruistic. He didn't set specific conditions.
He didn't say "I will start to be altruistic if the government stop taxing my income".

If your wish comes true, if welfare spending goes down to zero, then you will see society as a whole crumble. Children will be begging and scavenging for food everywhere. Many would be used and abused by some of the more psychopathic elements of society. Single mothers, the old, the handicapped, the sick and the underfed would all suffer the same fate. People will give wide berths walking past dead bodies lying in the streets.

Too extreme you say? Guess what? It has happened before, repeatedly, throughout human history. No heroic altrustic brigade has ever emerged to take care of the weaker members of society. Sure, there have been a few exceptions to that, individuals and small charities, but those has always been the exceptions rather than the rule.

The United States was never meant to mimic a dystopian Elizabethan society of feudal lords, land barons, merchant princes and a permanent serf class devoid of any chance of upward economic and social mobility. The establishment of the United States was a direct result of the Age of Enlightenment. It aspired to be something greater, something more noble.

Is the government we have now perfect? Hell no. But that doesn't mean that we should throw out the baby with the bath water.
Instead, we should work on fixing it. We fight to find the equilibrium between wealth, virtue and compassion.
Shouldn't we all aspire to be the best that we can possibly be, morally, ethically and financially, instead of devolving into small clusters defined narrowly and exclusively by self-preservation?

Doing the right thing is never easy.

Do me a favor. This weekend, make a trip to a local orphanage or centers for single mothers or the handicapped. Spend a few hours there. I swear, your whole perspective will change.