The Death Tax

There's a difference between Binding and Non-binding Arbitration:

Do you have a single example anywhere in human history where a large civilization has successfully functioned through such a system?

Why does that matter?

The better question is: how does a dictator rise in a privatized society? If each individual is his/her own authority, then what power would a dictator have? Dictatorships are forms of government, Double_R.

And who decides what is an egregious immoral act?

It isn't "who?"; it's "what?" And that would be individualist moral philosophy.

Of course there is,

and non-binding arbitration is perfectly fine for some circumstances, but not for every circumstance.

What your advocating for is a society without a government, so in your idealistic world there would be no such thing as binding arbitration. That's the issue.

Because the issue I have with your ideal scenario is that it is not realistic

Your argument completely disregards greed and the drive for power, some of the most basic elements of human nature. Dictatorships rise because an individual comes along who becomes the alpha of his group, who then uses a combination of charisma, loyalty, and promise of reward to get those around them to carry out their will. And as this individual becomes more powerful they are able to add fear to that equation. Look at what Hitler did in Germany, what Putin did in Russia, hell look at what Trump is doing here.

A system of government like the one you're advocating could only work if people feel assured that the system will continue to work, but you offer no source of assurance. You just presume everyone will respect everyone else even though we know objectively that this is not how human nature works. Even upon the threat of an authority that is far more powerful, far more resourceful, and far more relentless than any individual could ever be, people still take their chances to steal, cheat, and kill. Yet you believe in a system without that authority people wouldn't do far more of this? That's pure fantasy.

Look at what Hitler did in Germany, what Putin did in Russia, hell look at what Trump is doing here.

Everyone has a different moral philosophy.

I might decide that looking at my wife is an egregious immoral act and then kill someone over it.

Does the family of the victim hire an arbitrator to rule against me?

Well I say that I don't respect their authority, now what?

If human nature dictated that individuals couldn't engage social and economic interaction as determined per their own devices, why would grouping individuals together and calling it "government" be any less dictated by human nature? Wouldn't organizing these individuals make their human nature that much more dangerous? Please answer the questions directly.

I might decide that looking at my wife is an egregious immoral act and then kill someone over it.

And how have you rationalized with respect to your condition and that of those with whom you interact that killing someone for merely looking at your wife maximizes utility and minimizes suffering?

Does the family of the victim hire an arbitrator to rule against me?

The family can seek damages through some form of mediation. Or the family can persuade those within your community to ostracize and outlaw you.

Well I say that I don't respect their authority, now what?

You are your first and final authority; whether you respect the decision made from the arbitration is up to you. And as such, the consequences of continuing a dispute, like I've already mentioned frequently, is your responsibility.

and non-binding arbitration is perfectly fine for some circumstances, but not for every circumstance.

Such as?

What your advocating for is a society without a government, so in your idealistic world there would be no such thing as binding arbitration. That's the issue.

What issue or issues would arise absent of binding arbitration? Make sure to substantiate your response.

Because the issue I have with your ideal scenario is that it is not realistic

What isn't realistic about my ideal scenario? Please explain.

I would if I understood your question. I don’t. Please rephrase.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I just made. It was a hypothetical scenario. Please address the scenario.

How have you rationalized with respect to your condition and that of those with whom you interact that killing someone for merely looking at your wife maximizes utility and minimizes suffering?

This is your system, so perhaps you can offer what form of mediation would work in the absence of a murder trial.

I can do whatever I want, and so can everyone else.

And it’s up to each of us to decide for ourselves who should be punished for what and it’s up to each of us to enforce it. 

This can work within, say, a tribe of 30-40 people. This is not a recipe for a prosperous society.

All you’re advocating for is survival of the fittest, and by fittest we’re not talking about those who have contributed the most to the well being of society, we’re talking about those with the biggest guns.

Human civilization has been around for over 200k years, a government of some kind will always form. Whether it be an Indian chief, a monarch, a dictator, or an elected politician, there will always be an authority over society. It’s just a question of which one is best. Personally, I’ll take the one where we all have a say. Fantasizing of a society without authority doesn’t change human nature.

If you have no intention of responding to these questions, then communicate that explicitly and drop the points. 

Government is a composite of people whose actions presumably reflect their human nature just as much. And since there is no "higher authority" what prevents government from succumbing to the "human nature" which affects the individual?

That is not how morality works.

Then why would you allow anyone else to have authority over you if they are just as prone to their "human nature"?

I responded to every single one of them.

Your first example of a point I ignored what you asking me for an example of a scenario where non-binding arbitration would not suffice. Why would I answer that when we’re already having a whole back and forth on one (resolving a murder)? Or what issues would result from it (again, already discussed)? Or why your scenario is unrealistic? I gave you a whole two paragraphs as to how human nature does not work the way your system would depend on and yet you still act as if I didn’t address that.

Follow the conversation. Take a step back and start thinking big picture instead getting getting swallowed up by every individual sentence and this conversation would go a lot better.

Government does reflect their nature, that’s the whole point. Human nature was the entire topic of conversation at the constitutional convention, our government was founded on the idea of a government that does not succumb to the dangers of human nature. That’s why we have power divided amongst three different branches, it’s why we have a house and a senate, it’s why our DOJ operates independently from the president, etc. etc. etc.

If done right we end up with a system where everyone has a say, if done wrong we end up with an authoritarian regime. Looks like we did it right… for now.

We’re not talking about mortality,

we’re talking about a system by which society would function without a governing authority. You claimed those who commit egregious immoral acts would be held accountable and I’m asking you what mechanism would make that happen, which begins by answering who decides what is and is not moral in the first place.

And who decides what is an egregious immoral act?

It isn't "who?"; it's "what?" And that would be individualist moral philosophy.

It really was a rhetorical question because the answer is obvious - everyone, which really means no one. I kill you, your family comes back and kill’s me.

That’s your system of dealing with this, because the idea of an accused murderer accepting the ruling of a non binding arbitrater and volunteering themselves up for jail time is absurd. 

People’s will always act in their own personal best interests.

What drives criminals to turn themselves in is the knowledge that the government will find them if they don’t

Dictatorships rise because an individual comes along who becomes the alpha of his group, who then uses a combination of charisma, loyalty, and promise of reward to get those around them to carry out their will. And as this individual becomes more powerful they are able to add fear to that equation.

Self preservation. It’s the reason why everyone in Russia follows Putin - because if you don’t you end up dead. How is that not the obvious answer to you? How do you not understand that this is how it works in every country on earth without a strong democratic government?

You could not have responded if you "ignored."

All three branches are part of the same government. The DOJ is part of the government. If decentralizing power from one to three branches checks human nature to which a government is prone, then why wouldn't decentralizing it to 330,000,000 be just as, if not more effective? 

You're supposed to explain how this system of checks and balances curbs human nature among government officials, and why such a curb is impossible among your everyday individual.

Democracies are fundamentally immoral. Why you ask? Because they are premised on coercing the suppression of minority dissent.

So the employment of "fear," the very thing you condemned as part of dictatorships and elemental to "human nature." So how does this service your argument that governments curb "human nature"? The government's exploitation of fear is better than another's?

As opposed to I kill you, another holds me captive?

Because the death toll racked up by governments dwarfs any other entity by light years, and its not even close. So if your intentions are self-preservation, governments would literally be the worst choice. (Governments--type notwithstanding--are responsible for just about 170,000,000 deaths.)

In the absence of democracy all we see is one man rule, and that one man has no rules he must follow, no checks of any kind, and the only thing determining whether he remains in power is how well he instills fear into the people he governs. That is infinitely less moral than a democracy.

If you feel ignored that’s your problem, I will just respond to what I consider relevant to the actual disagreement.

What your advocating for is a society without a government, so in your idealistic world there would be no such thing as binding arbitration. That's the issue.

Because the issue I have with your ideal scenario is that it is not realistic

It is decentralized to 330,000,000 people, that’s what we call democracy.

Why would I explain something I never argued?

Human nature was the entire topic of conversation at the constitutional convention, our government was founded on the idea of a government that does not succumb to the dangers of human nature. That’s why we have power divided amongst three different branches, it’s why we have a house and a senate, it’s why our DOJ operates independently from the president, etc. etc. etc.

Let’s try this, do you know what checks and balances are and do you agree that a government should have them? I understand you don’t want a government, but that’s not the question. Assume for the sake of argument that we must have a government, what would you want that government to look like? Would you prefer a dictatorship?

I’m asking this because I seriously don’t know how to address your objection without being condescending.

I’ve never met someone who didn’t understand the point of checks and balances, yet you act as if you don’t.

No, democracies are a realization of basic human nature. Winston Churchill famously said “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried”, and at least so far he has been proven absolutely right.

In the absence of democracy all we see is one man rule, and that one man has no rules he must follow, no checks of any kind, and the only thing determining whether he remains in power is how well he instills fear into the people he governs. That is infinitely less moral than a democracy.

The fear that stops people from doing immoral/illegal things is an entirely different thing from the fear that forces people to accept an authority they would otherwise reject as the authority.

No, as in I am entitled to a fair trial vs. being subject to whatever justice anyone out there thinks is fair to be imposed on me.

This is an excellent clip that proves your point here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcJk64UdxIQ

And this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkHStde5rrk

The way social security works is that you pay in

Nice, in principle, but, you ignore three things:

so there was no reason for the funds to deplete

And while the labor force was at its historic maximum before Covid,  contributions were also at an increased level. The Biden admin is still about 4M jobs down from that max level. It doesn't help that he shut off the XL Pipeline and Anwar just to beg Opec to increase production. Production of oil and nat gas that is dirtier than ours. And I thought climate change was the greatest existential threat to us, according to that same Biden. Guess not. 

It doesn't help that he shut off the XL Pipeline.

I’m not going to explain basic maths to you. 

I note you have ignored that the SS funds, which should have been left alone, have been robbed for years - a couple of generations -  by Congress to fund other spending programs they love to enact. The program as designed should have been self-sustaining, and would have been but for robbery, in spite of boomers. Boomers created more contributions, too. Easy to ignore, I know, because everyone piles on boomers.

I do not "feel" ignored; you are ignoring; and I've quoted you verbatim explicitly stating that you've ignored.

But they haven’t…

That's what some people think. Wrong. The truth is, the robbery has been indirect, not direct. No, Congress does not really have sticky fingers greedy for cash, but they do have malaise of purpose. That is, Congress has know for about 35 years that the SS funds would have a future shortfall if they did not act to update the entire system to adjust retirement age, investment portfolios, and/or contributions, but they have failed to act over those 35 years. Net result: less in reserves than there woulds be had they acted then. Meaning the shortfall is still ahead. Meaning that Congress has effectively ignored Peter while paying Paul [with more and more expensive spending schemes, i.e., wasting their time; an identical bad outcome that can be squarely blamed on Congress.

What do you think about post #99?

Equally immoral is a democracy where freedom is not on the ballot and the only choices allowed are a false dichotomy of left and right alternatives of equally oppressive authorities.

Now you’re just lying, either that or you have reading comprehension issues. I already explained that when I used the term “ignore” I was paraphrasing your allegation, not characterizing it myself.

if you completely change the definition of robbery to something that is completely different from robbery - 

Congress has not acted to revise the system, thus leaving less accumulation of SS payouts

What would you call it?

With the addition of employers' matching contribution, overt a career, the SS payout is almost entirely funded by employees and employers, plus interest earned,  so there was no reason for the funds to deplete, except that the government has continuously robbed from the contributions for other purposes

I note you have ignored that the SS funds, which should have been left alone, have been robbed for years - a couple of generations -  by Congress to fund other spending programs they love to enact. The program as designed should have been self-sustaining, and would have been but for robbery, in spite of boomers. Boomers created more contributions, too.

explain the math.

Congress has not acted to revise the system, thus leaving less accumulation of SS payouts

that the government has continuously robbed from the contributions for other purposes