"Black Economy" -Right or wrong?

7sr2z3fely84g5

Should we listen to ministers and not support it,despite many struggle to make ends meet?.

Kasabian

Listening to Ministers about anything is just silly.

Kojak

Is that not discrimination to call it the "black economy"?

LighterGuy

black-economy?

i feel stupid. we're talking about black-market goods right?

dsmythy

In the long run people would be better off if they didn't go to the black market but hard to resist a bargain.

Kasabian

LighterGuy wrote: »

black-economy?

i feel stupid. we're talking about black-market goods right?

This thread is about slavery.

Ripped off Ipods come from the same place as over the counter Ipods.

KungPao

Well, we never would have the wonder that is Derek Trotter if it wasn't for the Black Economy.

So to that I say Bonjour, a la mode.

dotsman

It's got nothing to do with "listening to ministers". The black market should always be avoided. Void of legal protection and taxation, the only people who gain from it in the long term are the criminals.

Ironically, the people who buy goods/services via the black market are typically the ones complaining about "the state of the economy", that "there's no jobs", blame others for screwing up the economy and consider themselves very Irish/patriotic (celtic jerseys, ra-heads, anti english etc).

Chuck Stone

It depends on whether you think taxation is wrong I guess.

Bens

Like the POWs in WW2, whose duty it was to escape. It is your duty to try to avoid adding anymore money to the governments greedy hands - because it goes straight to the banks.

dermo88

The black economy exists because of the failure of Government policies. Policies that bailed out banks, and engaged in welfare capitalism. As a result a catastrophic chain reaction down the economy and society takes place.

This is the moral hazard caused by Sean Fitzpatrick being seen free on a golf course.

This is the moral hazard caused by David Drumm being seen in the United States declaring bankruptcy in a European Court.

This is the moral hazard caused by the likes of Charles Haughey NOT going to jail.

All across, a catastrophic chain reaction. Dishonesty is rewarded and virtue is mocked. In such a scenario, the Gardai and authorities are seen to protect an elite. They are seen to be unelected tax collectors, farming the roads for revenue catching rather than crime in itself.

A Black economy is symptomatic of excessive and unjust taxation. Low taxes mean honest taxpayers. However, public services do suffer. Its a sign that the state needs to lose some weight, and I am very right wing in that outlook. No State in history has taxed its way to prosperity without the knowledge and resources at its disposal to do so. Excessive taxation leads to emigration, history has always taught that much.

Sonnenblumen

dermo88 wrote: »

The black economy exists because of the failure of Government policies. Policies that bailed out banks, and engaged in welfare capitalism. As a result a catastrophic chain reaction down the economy and society takes place.

This is the moral hazard caused by Sean Fitzpatrick being seen free on a golf course.

This is the moral hazard caused by David Drumm being seen in the United States declaring bankruptcy in a European Court.

This is the moral hazard caused by the likes of Charles Haughey NOT going to jail.

All across, a catastrophic chain reaction. Dishonesty is rewarded and virtue is mocked. In such a scenario, the Gardai and authorities are seen to protect an elite. They are seen to be unelected tax collectors, farming the roads for revenue catching rather than crime in itself.

A Black economy is symptomatic of excessive and unjust taxation. Low taxes mean honest taxpayers. However, public services do suffer. Its a sign that the state needs to lose some weight, and I am very right wing in that outlook. No State in history has taxed its way to prosperity without the knowledge and resources at its disposal to do so. Excessive taxation leads to emigration, history has always taught that much.

What a load of hypocritical rubbish. The Black economy pre-dates most of what you suggest are some of the causes. The black economy is caused by bottom of the barrel dishonesty and cheating. Its just that these days, the cheats are blaming others for their own bad deeds. Hypocrites.:(

Amhran Nua

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

What a load of hypocritical rubbish. The Black economy pre-dates most of what you suggest are some of the causes. The black economy is caused by bottom of the barrel dishonesty and cheating. Its just that these days, the cheats are blaming others for their own bad deeds. Hypocrites.:(

Its hard to blame anyone for looking out for themselves these days in fairness. It would be a different story if we were getting world class services and weren't bailing out private banks at the behest of a weak and incompetent government, but we aren't.

Mickeroo

I have no idea what this thread is about

NIMAN

We would all love to buy from the right sources and pay taxes to support the country, but the black market is something that will never go away in any country.

How many of us get work done at home and pay in cash? We have all done it, and will continue to do so.

Daegerty

It doesn't matter. If the government doesnt have enough money to pay the EU and IMF loan they'll just bum up 'for nothing in return' taxes like property tax that nobody except our friendly travelling community can escape

LighterGuy

Mickeroo wrote: »

I have no idea what this thread is about

I hear you bro.
I ... really dont have a clue here.

GisforGrenade

I love it when capitalism comes back and bites politicians on the ar$e. Oh ya the market is great, boo to regulation, oh wait the market is bypassing us completely regulate it quick. Jesus lads why won't you just stick to the market we tell you to stick to and pay our wages.

hatrickpatrick

Why not? Every cent you pay in tax is currently going to failed gamblers who can't face the reality that they made bad choices, IE bank bondholders.

I resent paying any tax whatsoever to this government knowing that they're bailing out investors who chose to take risks, rather than bailing out the innocent collateral damage of that risk, IE you and me.

dermo88

Sonnenblumen

What a load of hypocritical rubbish. The Black economy pre-dates most of what you suggest are some of the causes. The black economy is caused by bottom of the barrel dishonesty and cheating. Its just that these days, the cheats are blaming others for their own bad deeds. Hypocrites.

Of course the black economy is caused by bottom of the barrel dishonesty and cheating. There is no denying that. There is also the old chestnut stated by a Government official who has never worked in the private sector in their lives;

"Taxes would be lower if everybody paid them"

Which frankly, is complete bollocks. Governments on the Left wing of the equation view the taxpayer as a bottomless pit to be milked and bled dry. Governments on the Right wing view the taxpayer as a privatised entity to be sold to their cronies at will for milking and bleeding.

Its about perception. Its about responsibilities over rights. Its about avoiding moral hazard. Not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done.

The Black economy was always there, no doubt about that, and if your back is against the wall financially, your first duty is not to the state. Its to your family and friends.

I do not specifically refer to Ireland, I refer in general, from failed states like Somalia at one end of the spectrum through to success stories such as Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland. I have grown increasingly convinced that the connections of an elite in Ireland are unsustainable for the size of the country. Its simply a case of too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

Bottom of the barrel cheating and dishonesty happen when those at the top are seen to have escaped justice. In terms of business, integrity with customers and colleagues and other parties is crucial. If I don't have that credibility, I do not do business. The same goes for the state. The 1980's were an era of rampant tax evasion and fraud because at the top.....abuses of power were observed. The result is a feedthrough loop.

When it comes to the state.....I have never taken a penny, apart from my education. Beyond that, nothing. Paid medical care myself.....worked since I was 16....and meanwhile.......these Bankers get bailed out. It is repulsive, and the people are expected to pay for someone elses incompetence and mistakes. This is a Weimar Republic style nightmare. Did you elect Holohan, Fitzpatrick, or Timothy Geithner? No.....you did'nt, I did'nt, yet they are making momentous, morally questionable decisions that will affect Billions of people in terms of the chain reaction and contagion they cause.

On the other hand, do I expect German taxpayers to continue forking out money to fund irresponsible and immature regimes hundreds of kilometers away from their borders. I don't.

I used the black economy when I was badly paid and when I was a student because there simply was no choice in the matter. It was a matter of survival, where an extra twenty quid a week was the difference between savings and debt. It does'nt sound like much, but twenty quid saved is as good as twenty earned.

If you seriously believe for one minute that what I said is hypocrisy, then I have Twenty Five Million Dollars frozen in a Bank account in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, West Africa. If you transfer $2,500 to my account, I can give you 10% commission once those funds are released.

Self interest will win out against a faceless and unaccountable state.

Neither you nor I can unravel the crisis hitting Ireland, Europe and the World. But.....honesty and transparency on the part of those in charge would solve many many problems. Until then, do not expect all society to be honest. I can pay a subscription to the Ku Klux Klan using a credit card, why not Wikileaks?

What I said is not hypocrisy, its the truth, and you cannot handle the truth.

Chuck Stone

A 'black economy' is in large part a by-product of a statist regime.

If there were no state apparatus, which essentially forces people to pay for it's perpetuation by threatening them with prison, there would be no forced taxation and then there would not be a black economy.

Guy:Incognito

Bens wrote: »

Like the POWs in WW2, whose duty it was to escape. It is your duty to try to avoid adding anymore money to the governments greedy hands - because it goes straight to the banks.

Good point. Not one cent goes anywhere else other than the banks. It's shown us though how over the last 2 years the country has run itself. Civil servants have got by without being paid sine 2008, hospitals are self sufficient, road never break.

Guy:Incognito

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Its hard to blame anyone for looking out for themselves these days in fairness. .

How long does "these days" cover? Theres always been a black economy. In good times and bad.

Seems like everyone is a professional victim now. You'd swear this was not only our first recession but the first one the worlds wever seen. It'll be interesting to see in 20-30 years when the next recession rolls around what all the same people have to say to the young people then that are complainign and seeing their first recession.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

A 'black economy' is in large part a by-product of a statist regime.

If there were no state apparatus, which essentially forces people to pay for it's perpetuation by threatening them with prison, there would be no forced taxation and then there would not be a black economy.

So who pays for the upkeep of the country if no one has to pay tax?

Chuck Stone

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So who pays for the upkeep of the country if no one has to pay tax?

No state = no country to 'upkeep'.

Would you really call what our state has been doing 'upkeep'?

I guess things would get done volutarily. If there was demand for services then they would be supplied by entrepreneurs and business.

HellFireClub

Jane Miniature Vein wrote: »

Should we listen to ministers and not support it,despite many struggle to make ends meet?.

Yeah lucky for them on the salaries they have that they don't have to concern themselves with the distinction. Fúcking itinerants the lot of them...

Guy:Incognito

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No state = no country to 'upkeep'.

Would you really call what our state has been doing 'upkeep'?

I guess things would get done volutarily. If there was demand for services then they would be supplied by entrepreneurs and business.

"You guess", Well there you have it. Just sit back and hope everythign gets done? Brilliant.

Who polices everything, or more to the point,who pays for it? Or are people naturally nice and just turn to crime and antisocial behaviour because theres a government in place?

You think public transport is crap now? Wait till every route that doesnt make a profit is gone. What private business is goign to keep loss making routes open?

How much are you willing to pay to use an entirely private healthcare system that is beign run for profit? What happens if your child is in a car crash and has a couple of hundred grands worth of stuff that needs doing there and then?


How do roads get built? Every road would have to be tolled or else it wouldnt get built. Private companies dont go around buildign roads to be nice.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If there was demand for services then they would be supplied by entrepreneurs and business.

and there is the crux of what I'm talkign about. Nothing that doesnt make a profit would be done by these people. Theres a huge amount more than what I put in this post that would be gone.

Chuck Stone

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

"You guess", Well there you have it. Just sit back and hope everythign gets done? Brilliant.

Nobody has a crystal ball.

Who polices everything, or more to the point,who pays for it?

In a stateless society it would probably be done at a local level by private security companies.

You think public transport is crap now? Wait till every route that doesnt make a profit is gone. What private business is goign to keep loss making routes open?

Do you think it's right that tax payers money be forced from them and used to fund loss making routes? That's a little dictatorial don't you think?

How much are you willing to pay to use an entirely private healthcare system that is beign run for profit? What happens if your child is in a car crash and has a couple of hundred grands worth of stuff that needs doing there and then?

Health insurance. Charity.

How do roads get built? Every road would have to be tolled or else it wouldnt get built. Private companies dont go around buildign roads to be nice.

Do you think that roads get built out of state benevolence? What's wrong with tolling roads? You can do the road building by forcing people to pay thru tax or you could leave it to business and allow people to choose.

Nothing that doesnt make a profit would be done by these people.

But taking tax payers money and ploughing into loss making 'enterprise' is a good thing?

Guy:Incognito

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In a stateless society it would probably be done at a local level by private security companies.

Who pays for it though? How do you generate money policing?Bouncers get paid by the club they are working at . who pays the private security company to police stuff and what law are they operatign under? Basically a group of private paid vigilantes telling people what to do.

SteoL

dotsman wrote: »

It's got nothing to do with "listening to ministers". The black market should always be avoided. Void of legal protection and taxation, the only people who gain from it in the long term are the criminals.

Ironically, the people who buy goods/services via the black market are typically the ones complaining about "the state of the economy", that "there's no jobs", blame others for screwing up the economy and consider themselves very Irish/patriotic (celtic jerseys, ra-heads, anti english etc).

And you know this how???????

Guy:Incognito

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Health insurance. Charity.

So what you want is to not pay taxes so that other people can just pay for your medical expenses for you?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Do you think that roads get built out of state benevolence? What's wrong with tolling roads? You can do the road building by forcing people to pay thru tax or you could leave it to business and allow people to choose.?

The state builds roads all over the country that wouldnt get built by private business.
Whats wrong with tolling roads you say? Nothign much, but tolling every road wouldnt work. How many different roads do you use everyday (assumign you drive) if not even just count the ones you get lifts on. How much would it cost you if you had to pay , say 50c , to use each one?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

But taking tax payers money and ploughing into loss making 'enterprise' is a good thing?

Its called "services". How much would a passport cost if the passport office had to ake a profit?

Seriously, this is a ridiculous arguement.

Chuck Stone

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Who pays for it though? How do you generate money policing?

I would imagine it would go out to tender for a locale to be policed for a few years. A security company with a good reputation would get the contract.

Guy:Incognito

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I would imagine it would go out to tender for a locale to be policed for a few years. A security company with a good reputation would get the contract.

Who puts it to tender? Theres no government. Who pays the security company? Theres not taxes so where does the money get generated from to pay them?

krissovo

Most of us have less money in our pockets than we did a few years ago, mine is approx €500 down per month. I need to maintain a semi decent lifestyle so a few €€€€ saved on cigarettes, booze, cash jobs etc means I will be able to take some form of holiday this year. I did buy some of this on the black economy even when times were good but no where near the level I do now.

Bens

To be fair id like to see the health service just dropped. Gone.

And then any portion of our tax given to it at the moment, to be back in our pay packets at the end of each month. So we could use that money to pay for our own medical expenses or insurance as we need them.

Then id like to ask the people who are demanding that I pay more tax, how things are going for them. Is their tax covering their medical expenses now?

Let them see how the mantra "Anyone who earns more than me should pay more tax" actually works in real life.

Chuck Stone

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So what you want is to not pay taxes so that other people can just pay for your medical expenses for you?

What are you on about? What's wrong with health insurance?

The state builds roads all over the country that wouldnt get built by private business.

Some people would call that a waste of money. Why should the tax payer be responsible for running a road up the side of a mountain for some gobshite who likes to live up there?

Whats wrong with tolling roads you say? Nothign much, but tolling every road wouldnt work.

The technology is there to track cars and charge accordingly.

You see how you're very concerned about the roads yeah? Well most people would be concerned about the roads.

Let's say the state ceased to exist tomorrow - do you think people would just lie down and cry and scream 'Oh no we can't use the roads anymore - let's just give up and use horses'

Of course they wouldn't they'd make it work imo.

Its called "services". How much would a passport cost if the passport office had to ake a profit?

I'd say a private company would do it faster and cheaper tbh.

Seriously, this is a ridiculous arguement.

We're having an argument? Lol relax, just a bit of a chat.

Guy:Incognito

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What are you on about? What's wrong with health insurance?:)

I clearly highlighted the charity bit.

How much does health insurance ost in the US?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Some people would call that a waste of money. Why should the tax payer be responsible for running a road up the side of a mountain for some gobshite who likes to live up there?:)

Are you 8 or what? How many roads are there up mountains to cater for 1 person? Not enough to matter. Roads all over the country cost huge amounts of money to build and maintain.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The technology is there to track cars and charge accordingly.

My issue is not how to charge people properly, i think I was quite clear. It's about how much it would cost people just on their daily trip. If you use 10 roads to get to work and 10 to get back, at 50c a road its costing €10 to get to and from work every day. Plus work is not the only place people go.Thats picking 50c out of the air, god know how much it would cost to actually keep the roads goign and make a profit for the company running it.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You see how you're very concerned about the roads yeah? Well most people would be concerned about the roads.

Let's say the state ceased to exist tomorrow - do you think people would just lie down and cry and scream 'Oh no we can't use the roads anymore - let's just give up and use horses':)

Ah right so its all nice and convenient is it? The government puts everythign in place then we disband it and we have nice, useable roads for ever? How woudl the roads ahve been built in the first place? How are they maintained?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Of course they wouldn't they'd make it work imo.

Really? What sort of fantasy world do you live in?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'd say a private company would do it faster and cheaper tbh.

.

I picked passports off the top of my head. Theres a huge amount of things that couldnt be run for profit, which is part of why governments exist. How much would it cost to have a large, self sufficient office running 9-5 monday to friday churning out passports? Then divide that by the amount of passports issued each year then add 10-15% profit on to each passport.

Chuck Stone

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How much does health insurance ost in the US?

I have no idea but I'd imagine it's way too much. That wouldn't be just because health insurance is over charging people. The cost of medicines, paying health workers wages (low supply high deman inflates costs) would all contibute to inneficiency.

Are you 8 or what?

I've been civil with you so perhaps you could be civil with me in return?

Roads all over the country cost huge amounts of money to build and maintain.

Yes and it's paid for by us anyway. Why wouldn't a private company do it just as good if not better than who's doing it at the moment.

There were council workers down at the bottom of our estate filling in pot-holes after the freeze. By Christ it was an appalling job and they were pot-holes again within a few days. Personally, I would have been embarrased if it was me who did it.

Anyway, a sub-contracter came in a tore the road up and replaced the whole thing within a coupla days (abt 200m of road).

Ah right so its all nice and convenient is it? The government puts everythign in place then we disband it and we have nice, useable roads for ever? How woudl the roads ahve been built in the first place? How are they maintained?

You know that the govt gets it's money off us don't you? The govt doesn't actually have it's own money. It's not like 'the govt' says 'You know what - let's build some roads because we like pleasing people'.

Really? What sort of fantasy world do you live in?

Yes - it's just conjecture. However - if we look at the utter mess our govt has gotten us in don't you think it's healthy to imagine alternatives?

I picked passports off the top of my head. Theres a huge amount of things that couldnt be run for profit,

Not everything has to be run for profit. People could set up Co-ops and have community run services.

which is part of why governments exist.

Not really.

How much would it cost to have a large, self sufficient office running 9-5 monday to friday churning out passports? Then divide that by the amount of passports issued each year then add 10-15% profit on to each passport.

I still think it'd be way cheaper and faster if people actually had to compete. How about two or three passport offices competing for our business? Best value and best service gets the job.

Alter-Ego

Mickeroo wrote: »

I have no idea what this thread is about

It's about buying your johnny blues off yer one that stands outside the Moore Street entrance to the Ilac Centre

Hope that cleared it up for you...

Guy:Incognito

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I have no idea but I'd imagine it's way too much. That wouldn't be just because health insurance is over charging people. The cost of medicines, paying health workers wages (low supply high deman inflates costs) would all contibute to inneficiency.



I've been civil with you so perhaps you could be civil with me in return?



Yes and it's paid for by us anyway. Why wouldn't a private company do it just as good if not better than who's doing it at the moment.

There were council workers down at the bottom of our estate filling in pot-holes after the freeze. By Christ it was an appalling job and they were pot-holes again within a few days. Personally, I would have been embarrased if it was me who did it.

Anyway, a sub-contracter came in a tore the road up and replaced the whole thing within a coupla days (abt 200m of road).



You know that the govt gets it's money off us don't you? The govt doesn't actually have it's own money. It's not like 'the govt' says 'You know what - let's build some roads because we like pleasing people'.



Yes - it's just conjecture. However - if we look at the utter mess our govt has gotten us in don't you think it's healthy to imagine alternatives?



Not everything has to be run for profit. People could set up Co-ops and have community run services.



Not really.



I still think it'd be way cheaper and faster if people actually had to compete. How about two or three passport offices competing for our business? Best value and best service gets the job.

I asked if you were 8 because you have such a simplistic way of lookng at the world. That opinion hasnt changed. Pretty much every bit of what you say is nonsense.

what about the bit about policing from further back up? Where does the money come from?

Chuck Stone

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I asked if you were 8 because you have such a simplistic way of lookng at the world:mad:. That opinion hasnt changed:mad:. Pretty much every bit of what you say is nonsense:mad:.

Okay let's go with your standard. Are you a gumpy, conservative, negative, old git who lacks imagination?

what about the bit about policing from further back up? Where does the money come from?

I suppose that a district, housing estate, geographic area would come together and put security contract out to tender. A good security company would win the contract a bad one wouldn't.

I don't have all the answers. It's extremely unimaginative and immature of you to expect me to 'quarterback' an entire future of a stateless society.

As I said before this is just conjecture.

Open your mind a little and try to be more receptive to alternative ideas.

Guy:Incognito

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Okay let's go with your standard. Are you a gumpy, conservative, negative, old git who lacks imagination? .

seriously? I'm those things because I am realistic, with an idea of how things work in the real world, am able to give reasons why, whereas your counter arguement to everythign seems to not go beyond "stuff will just work out and everyone will band together". Hav you been out in the world at all?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I suppose that a district, housing estate, geographic area would come together and put security contract out to tender. A good security company would win the contract a bad one wouldn't..

So a group of peopel in a geographic location get together and form a group of some sort, collect money from all the people in the area and decide how to spend the money on stuff the people need, yeah? Think I've heard of that system before.......
Maybe they could all choose a small group from within to take these decisions so as to streamline the process and speed it up so that every tedious little decision doesnt have to wait for every individuals approval?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't have all the answers. It's extremely unimaginative and immature of you to expect me to 'quarterback' an entire future of a stateless society.

As I said before this is just conjecture.

Open your mind a little and try to be more receptive to alternative ideas.

You were the one that suggested it all, the least you can do is come up with reason why it would work. If we're just throwing out things without the need to back them up then I sujest we go back to the Punt, print enough for everyone to have £10m then all our problems will be solved cos we'll be rich.

mick087

Yes for some the use of the black market is right.

Chuck Stone

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

seriously? I'm those things because I am realistic, with an idea of how things work in the real world, am able to give reasons why,

No you're not. You're putting up reasons why not. It seems to me that merely entertaining an idea which doesn't conform to your worldview brings you out in a rash.

whereas your counter arguement to everythign seems to not go beyond "stuff will just work out and everyone will band together".

You have yet to give a satisfactory reason why it wouldn't and I don't think you have the ability to tbh.

Hav you been out in the world at all?

Yes.

So a group of peopel in a geographic location get together and form a group of some sort, collect money from all the people in the area and decide how to spend the money on stuff the people need, yeah? Think I've heard of that system before.......

Yes, it's not such an alien concept - much like a residents associations.

Maybe they could all choose a small group from within to take these decisions so as to streamline the process and speed it up so that every tedious little decision doesnt have to wait for every individuals approval?

Yes, maybe they could. It would be done by consent anyway.

You were the one that suggested it all, the least you can do is come up with reason why it would work.

These are not my concepts. There's plenty of information out there postualting how a stateless society might function if you care to look.

If we're just throwing out things without the need to back them up

You can't back up something that is an idea with proof. Now you can look to a place like the Soviet Union and say that it was the opposite of a stateless society and see the dystopia that emerged and surmise that a free market stateless society would be exponentially better. Who knows until you try?

then I sujest we go back to the Punt, print enough for everyone to have £10m then all our problems will be solved cos we'll be rich.

No.

I'm pretty sure that printing money just leads to inflation and hurts people with low wages and others without the capacity to absorb it's effect.

Guy:Incognito

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No you're not. You're putting up reasons why not. It seems to me that merely entertaining an idea which doesn't conform to your worldview brings you out in a rash..

Of course I'm giving reasons why not. I'm showing you why your ideas dont work.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You have yet to give a satisfactory reason why it wouldn't and I don't think you have the ability to tbh...

Companies wont do things unless they are making money from it. Quite a chunk of the stuff funded from taxes are loss making. They are that way because they are either not things your can make money from or things that people wouldnt pay the amounts they would need to charge to make them profitable.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes, it's not such an alien concept - much like a residents associations.



Yes, maybe they could. It would be done by consent anyway...

Or. like a government?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

These are not my concepts. There's plenty of information out there postualting how a stateless society might function if you care to look.

How it MIGHT work. It's very easy to give out about whats goign on and say you could do better. The reality of it when your in the position is much different. Give Enda Kenny a ring and ask him.

BTW, why are you telling me to go find information to prove your point?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You can't back up something that is an idea with proof..

You can make an effort to show why your think it would work and hw it would work though.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that printing money just leads to inflation and hurts people with low wages and others without the capacity to absorb it's effect.

Sarcasm isnt your friend, is it?

Chuck Stone

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Of course I'm giving reasons why not. I'm showing you why your ideas dont work.

You have shown nothing of the sort. They are merely ideas. For them to be tesed there would have to be a stateless society as a social experiment. Now surely you can't claim to have set one up and watched it fail?

Companies wont do things unless they are making money from it. Quite a chunk of the stuff funded from taxes are loss making.

Loss making until they are privatised or forced to compete with private industry. Take Aer Lingus for example. It was wallet raping people for decades until Ryanair came a long a booted it up the hole. Now we all have better air services with choice, efficency, and value.

There's a real world example for you.

They are that way because they are either not things your can make money from or things that people wouldnt pay the amounts they would need to charge to make them profitable.

This is your opinion. Evidence to give it weight?

The reality of it when your in the position is much different. Give Enda Kenny a ring and ask him.

No thanks. I don't trust any of those shower of bastards who sold us out for their corrupt friends.

Now there's govt. workin' for us; huh?

BTW, why are you telling me to go find information to prove your point?

You said they were 'my ideas' they're not.

You can make an effort to show why your think it would work and hw it would work though.

See example above (Ryaniar v State Monopoly)

I've already said to you that if you take the Soviet Union, the state controlled and ran everything and seen how much of a failure it was and (work with me now, I know you have difficulty with ideas) carry out a little thought experiment and reverse the polarity.

You completely remove the state from daily life and let voluntarism and entrepreneurship take precedence over gunpoint taxation.

Would we end up with a much better system? Perhaps. I think it quite likely myself.

Sarcasm isnt your friend, is it?

What's sarcasm?

Guy:Incognito

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You have shown nothing of the sort. They are merely ideas. For them to be tesed there would have to be a stateless society as a social experiment. Now surely you can't claim to have set one up and watched it fail?



Loss making until they are privatised or forced to compete with private industry. Take Aer Lingus for example. It was wallet raping people for decades until Ryanair came a long a booted it up the hole. Now we all have better air services with choice, efficency, and value.

There's a real world example for you.

Aer Lingus had faiely big cash reserves (€700m or so) that has been eaten away in the last few years.

Do you watch the news? They are on a fairly big cost cutting venture over the last 2 years or so.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is your opinion. Evidence to give it weight?

policing and fire service. How do you turn them in to private , profitable businesses?

Everything becomes a pay to use system. Every school is now private, meaning it costs a couple of grand a year per child just so they can go to school. You stil have all the other costs associated.Do we start selling ads on the kids schoolbags or what to make money off all this?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No thanks. I don't trust any of those shower of bastards who sold us out for their corrupt friends.

Now there's govt. workin' for us; huh?

Why are you deflectign away from the point instead of answering?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You said they were 'my ideas' they're not.

You brought them to the thread and are promotign them, so for that purpose they are your ideas. They certainly arent mine. If they are so good, why the reluctance to attach yourslef to them?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I've already said to you that if you take the Soviet Union, the state controlled and ran everything and seen how much of a failure it was and (work with me now, I know you have difficulty with ideas) carry out a little thought experiment and reverse the polarity.

Were not in the Soviet Union, wer're coming from a position of having state run and private business alongside each other. The failure of Communisn has little to do with Ireland.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You completely remove the state from daily life and let voluntarism and entrepreneurship take precedence over gunpoint taxation.

Would we end up with a much better system? Perhaps. I think it quite likely myself.

No we would not. We would end up with ultra capitalism where only profit matters and no one does anything for the good of others. If theres money to be made from something , peopel will make as much as they can.
Any social services and things that are propped up by the state fll by the wayside.
Who supports all these time rich people that are voluntering? It may come as a surprise to you (again the harsh reality of life) but much activism is run off the back of the social welfare system. Its very easy to sit for months protesting when you've got the dole every week. How long can peopel survive with zero income?

Chuck Stone

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Aer Lingus had faiely big cash reserves (€700m or so) that has been eaten away in the last few years.

How much of that was effectively extorted from us when they had a monopoly? I remember it being the equivalent of 3 weeks wages to fly to England from this country.

Do you watch the news? They are on a fairly big cost cutting venture over the last 2 years or so.

Yes, and probably none of this would have happened if it weren't for competition.

policing and fire service. How do you turn them in to private , profitable businesses?

They're already funded by the tax-payer so why not have fire fighting companies compete with each other to provide services? Likewise with security.

Well run, cost effective fire fighting companies would win contracts. Why is it so hard for you to get this?

You're trying to make me quarterback this again. You should be able to think of possible alternatives and how they might work in a stateless society yourself.

And for that reason: I'm out.

Guy:Incognito

Chuck Stone wrote: »

How much of that was effectively extorted from us when they had a monopoly? I remember it being the equivalent of 3 weeks wages to fly to England from this country...

How is that relevant? If it cost them ore money to be profitable then thats business. Thats exactly what your looking for across the board in every area by eliminating the government and havign private business run everything.

Whats the point in Aer lingus charging next to nothing to travel if they end up folding?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They're already funded by the tax-payer so why not have fire fighting companies compete with each other to provide services? Likewise with security..

Compete to provide money to who? whos paying them? Do you pay them when you call them out? Do they save you from rape or stop your house burnign down before or after you pay them? How do they know you rcan definately pay?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Well run, cost effective fire fighting companies would win contracts. Why is it so hard for you to get this?.

As above.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You're trying to make me quarterback this again. You should be able to think of possible alternatives and how they might work in a stateless society yourself.

And for that reason: I'm out.

Very easy to jump out without actually answering anything.

Your proposing basically replacing one government with loads of small ones. Sateless? Or small States?

Lets take Cavan as an example. The government is now gone and the people of Cavan are setting about lookign after all the things they need. They need money to run the local school, hospital, police (or private scurity firm) private fire fighters etc. So they need money for this. The appointed leaders of Cavan have to go to the people for money. What if the people dont give them money? Where do they get it to pay the security people?
What if some peopel pay and some dont? Is there a list of houses that fires can be put out in?

Sounds to me like your system needs a government........

Chuck Stone

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Compete to provide money to who? whos paying them? Do you pay them when you call them out? Do they save you from rape or stop your house burnign down before or after you pay them? How do they know you rcan definately pay?

You see what you're doing there? You're expecting me to describe in detail how something might work in the absence of the state. Stop being lazy minded.

I would guess you pay for it like you would for car insurance. Or perhaps the fire companies would have their own accounts dept. so you could pay a monthly/ ½yr/ yearly fee to retain their service.

Are you deliberately obsfuscating or are you genuinely having difficulty playing with ideas?

Don't answer.

This conversation is over.

Dimithy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You see what you're doing there? You're expecting me to describe in detail how something might work in the absence of the state. Stop being lazy minded.

I would guess you pay for it like you would for car insurance. Or perhaps the fire companies would have their own accounts dept. so you could pay a monthly/ ½yr/ yearly fee to retain their service.

Are you deliberately obsfuscating or are you genuinely having difficulty playing with ideas?

Don't answer.

This conversation is over.

So basically your idea boils down to:
1 get rid of big Government
2 Set up small local Government, but its not really a government.....or something like that, maybe.
3 Collect money from people, but not taxes, and not everyone has to pay.....or something like that, maybe.
4 ?
5 ?
6 Well functioning society.

And the only reason why anyone would have a problem with this is lack of imagination?
Really?

Chuck Stone

Dimithy wrote: »

So basically your idea

It's not my idea FFS.

It's merely speculating on how a non-coercive, non-violent, society that works on voluntarism and the free market (not a corporatocracy) might work.

If you're really interested watch this video.