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"?
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.
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.
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.