Anarchism

Roads, bridges, railines, sanitation. You also have public services like firestations, the police force, and public education I mean the list goes on, so many things we rely on are funded by taxes. If the government is to small to need taxes then who maintains all of these things?

Also, who organizes these people?

I believe that all of these things ought to be privatized, much like they are, but set to government standards and under certain regulations. Utilities are tricky to fit this model. But again, I'm a minarhist, and I'm no expert. If it seems logical that the governments ought to control them, then they should. But minimal taxes, and minimal spending, I am a pragmatist, a realist. Ideally there would be no taxes, as they are morally wrong.

There's a special room in my heart for Anarcho-primitivism. But like The Shaw said,

I don't really have any hope of returning to that, and violent attempts to destroy our current system are not useful in reaching that goal in the long term, like what the Unabomber did. So Minarchism rings pretty well with me.

I trust the goervernment to run the police force or firefighters more then a corporation, as corporation is motavated by profit, which should not be your chief concern when fighting fires or enforcing laws, I can just see a lot of things wrong with this.

People pay for education now. In the form of taxes. It isn't different n the slightest, except it isn't robbery. Nobody has the right to a free education. If you want somebody to teach you or your children, you pay them for their services. That's how it is, how it always was, and how it better stay. Nobody has "the right to free education".

I have often fantasized about living in an anarcho-primitivist society.

Well of course things like Law enforcement, courts, and fire control would be ran by the government, isn't that obvious? Again, I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist.

But if the governement was a small as you wanted them to be(to point where they would not need taxes), how could they effectivly organize and fund a organizations like these?

Ideally there would be no taxes, but I am no idealist, as I have said multiple times now. I recognize that there are some instances where taxes may indeed be necessary, as there needs to be certain government programs in a modern society, but they are no where near required on the scale we have them now.

So they can "rob" people with taxes when they don't get enough money? I'm sure a system like that would get abused pretty fast, I can think of a thousand loopholes just off the top of my head. So sooner or later your just back at square one.

Excuse me? I honestly fail to understand what you mean. Care to clarify? Or be more specific?

You said that if the "state" ran out of money from private donations it could just start taxing people anyway. On a progressive scale of some sort. So what's to stop them from running up expenses or claiming they need more money for a project when they don't so they can get more tax revenue? Who could judge whether they were telling the truth or not. Where's the checks and balances? This is how our current system gets more tax revenue. Sooner or later the state is going to want a little more money, then more and more. Until you hit a point were there's taxes for everything again. Its happened with quite a few revolutionary states. Becoming corrupt and powerful again. What's to stop it happening in your ideal one?

Man, I don't wanna sound like I'm being overly romantic or anything, but I sometimes I wish I could have lived then. Or to at least see what it is actually like.

This is an important point. It is always necessary when thinking of a new government to anticipate the worst, that our government may become corrupt. The framers of the constitution attempted to do this, however due to internal squabbles between different interest groups that is all to common in democratic systems, they failed.
Basically, there would be a limit on how much money the governments are allowed to have based on how much they need, and on some mathematical formula that could surely be thought up if necessary by legislators. The people should be allowed to appeal to courts if they believe their taxes are too high or they have been paying them beyond necessity, and courts should be allowed to take the initiative to enforce these taxation regulation against the executive branch. Such measures , and others like it, are necessary to ensure a government does not grow too large.

Indeed, it must have been life at it's purest.

Wouldn't that create a massive bureaucracy? That needs to be paid for? This still doesn't really fix the problem that the government would never really have enough money from private donations to pay for all the essentials. For the essentials the government needs at least 2 Trillion dollars a year (that's completely cutting off the entire defense budget, funding for science/research, and foreign aid). Right now the government only makes 2 Trillion dollars in revenue with taxes. So unless you think people are going to pay the same amount, without being forced to, as they do now the government is going to need quite a bit of "forced" taxes to cover the discrepancy. This gap will only get bigger and bigger with population growth and population aging. It's simply implausible and impossible to maintain.

Do your figures include cutting out entitlement programs? I would like to see them. Also you must not understand the scope and size of our government now, especially in comparison to what I am imagining.

No I didn't don't cut out entitlement programs, why would I? How are those people going to get medical care? Are doctors going to work for free now? How are old people going to pay their bills when they retire. etc. etc.

Here's a couple sources for the U.S. federal budget. http://www.federalbudget.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

I don't really understand that last part? What exactly do you mean? Explain please?

Nobody is entitled to anything from the government. Healthcare is tricky. Regardless of whether we ought to have universal healthcare, it definitely shouldn't be from the Fed, but from the states. As for social security, people who have payed should get their money back. Money management is not the job of the government. People should save their own damn money. Welfare is pointless because the same can be ahieved through charity. If you want to help poor people then help them, but domn't force anybody to.

As for your links, I don't trust them.

And by the last part I was referring to your comment that my plan would somehow create a large beuracracy, to which I can assure you is just plain wrong. Decreasing the size of the government couldn't possibly make it bigger, that doesn't make any sense.

Actually people are entitled to things from the government because they pay for the government with taxes. Which is why taxes aren't "robbing" anyone of anything because they get something out of paying those taxes and that's why people pay them in the first place. When people are living on the margins it's pretty hard to save much of anything up. That wouldn't change because people would still have to pay some taxes and donate money to keep the system going. Which leaves everyone right back at square one. Also total private donations in the U.S. are around 300 billion dollars a year. A lot of that goes aboard anyway. Even if that all went to domestic issues that's not even half the total cost of medicare not to mention every thing else

Why not? Here's some more. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258 http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_gs.php

I didn't say it would make it bigger but if you want a system that has checks and balances and a large functional court system then that's still going to be somewhat large.

Here's some reading material: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

What is so "impossible and contradictory" about it?

An anarchist state? What the hell does your little rant about taxes have to do with anarchism? Also if people are inhernetly greedy, wouldnt it make more sense then to distribute power as equally among the people as possible instead of concentrating it with a small group of people.