Originally Posted by Mallymkun

Socialism is a bad thing; it's completely immoral. I don't want the government to force me to pay for the propagation of ideas that I disbelieve. I don't want the government to coerce me into helping individuals who do not deserve it (in my eyes), I want it to be voluntary. I should be able to choose what I pay for, what I invest in and, more importantly, how I spend my own money. Once you look into the definition of stealing, and how the government will threaten you and inevitably imprison you for resisting theft, it fits it. It's a shakedown that is labelled as moral - forced altruism. Has an anarcho-capitalist society ever been tried? No. So you cannot say it wouldn't work, when leaving aside the moral issues, as most often do.

It's very simple. You invest in private services before these kinds of things happen. It's your own fault if you haven't planned for that kind of situation. I don't care why the fire department puts out my fire, all that matters is that they do it. It's a two way street - the fundamental basis of capitalism. I need to sell you something to leave, and I need to buy it to live.

Originally Posted by Mallymkun

I don't like the culture.

I'd rather the government didn't steal my fucking earnings for god knows what, rather than toy around with hypotheticals.

Originally Posted by Mallymkun

I don't know how to respond to that.

Originally Posted by Mallymkun

You sound like a socialist. Are you a socialist?

Originally Posted by Mallymkun

Before I answer, I'd like to clarify that I don't prescribe my beliefs to Ayn Rand or any other ideology. I pride myself on being open-minded and finding solutions to deeply immoral problems and situations.

To answer the question, instead of tax, people would rely on mutual aid. Mutual aid is helping each other to achieve individual and mutual beneficial goals. Coercive economic models would be replaced with voluntary models that aren't dependent on exploiting. Altruism ultimately comes with reward; it is in a person's own interest to help others (just look at the charities and organisations we have already). If you want a specific example of a model that would feature in a fiscally-anarchistic society, look up the viable systems model. It effectively allows the principles of mutual aid to be enlarged to a larger system that is autonomous and self-producing.

Originally Posted by Mallymkun

You make it sound as if the free market is a representative of natural selection. On the contrary, yada yada yada

Originally Posted by Mallymkun

Before I answer, I'd like to clarify that I don't prescribe my beliefs to Ayn Rand or any other ideology. I pride myself on being open-minded and finding solutions to deeply immoral problems and situations.

To answer the question, instead of tax, people would rely on mutual aid. Mutual aid is helping each other to achieve individual and mutual beneficial goals. Coercive economic models would be replaced with voluntary models that aren't dependent on exploiting. Altruism ultimately comes with reward; it is in a person's own interest to help others (just look at the charities and organisations we have already). If you want a specific example of a model that would feature in a fiscally-anarchistic society, look up the viable systems model. It effectively allows the principles of mutual aid to be enlarged to a larger system that is autonomous and self-producing.

You make it sound as if the free market is a representative of natural selection. On the contrary, state monopoly provision of welfare and social services gives the politicians and bureaucrats power. If taxation really was the ideology of giving money to the poor, then why doesn't the state do it directly? A system of cash payments to the poor would be more beneficial, surely? Milton Friedman believed in a negative income tax that would replace all income programs with a cash payment to every citizen; a system that gives people an incentive to work, rather than become dependent on the state. Again, I don't prescribe to it, but it is interesting. You can argue that Sweden doesn't have minimum wage, but it does alright with the unions vs employers concept.

In an anarchistic society, it is wholly possible that we'd have the same functioning police force on the same scale, however, it's funded voluntarily. If they are reported to have done something such as stealing, or threatening, then they are putting their jobs at risk. They simply have no incentive to do something like that.

If they decide to rise against the people, like the state, then this is why you have the second amendment.