California proposes "exit tax" for fleeing refugees.

Author: Greyparrot

Posts

Total: 91
#31
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Exactly, that's what honest people do when they can't steal.

But do they have a right to not set a price, tell you that you're benefiting from what they do, and then take what they deem fit and use it for what they deem fit?
you aren't making any sense. You are comparing a business producing and selling a product to a government providing a service. Your rambling is just nonsense. 

Our modern world would not have been possible without taxes and government services. 
Nor would the holocaust, I guess we'll have to do a more detailed analysis after all. (By 'we' I mean you, I've done that analysis a long time ago).
You have to be trolling right? The industrial revolution would never have happened without government services and taxes. Without governments and taxes, we would probably still be some tribal society clubbing each other with rocks. 

Every time they pay another person or company they are paying their fair share. You may have known the fact, but you do not understand the implication. A man who interacts by honestly gained consent cannot be a thief.
No, they are one rich person paying another rich person. That is not "paying their fair share" if both those rich men made their fortunes using public funds, then amass huge amounts of wealth while their workers struggle to stay afloat and the resources they took advantage of to amass their wealth wither. 

Thus no one owes taxes.
lol so go live on a deserted island somewhere. If you want to live in a country, you pay taxes. Im sure small children could explain it to you. 

If I built the parking lot the analogy is sound.
lol no. Because just because you own a parking lot, does not mean you get to determine the laws that apply to that parking lot. 

Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
ok. so let's remove the vote. the same thing would be for dinner. You pretending like voting is the problem in that scenario is just childish. 

Apply your logic to consent for sexual contact, how do you feel about that?
lol seriously? we do. We have laws that determine what kind of sexual contact is ok. Those laws are decided by the government, which is voted on by the people. How is this news to you?
Topic's author
#32
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,299
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
The industrial revolution would never have happened without government services and taxes
But most of it did happen without massive outlays of corporate welfare, when Government was less than 5% of the GDP instead of the current 40%
#33
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
But most of it did happen without massive outlays of corporate welfare, when Government was less than 5% of the GDP instead of the current 40%
I'm not talking about corporate welfare. That's not government, that's corporations taking over the government and abusing. But the modern world could not exist without taxes and government. As an example, the romans built extensive road systems all over Europe using a centralized government funded by taxes. When the empire collapsed and more decentralized governments took over, most roads deteriorated or simply ceased to exist. Trade massively diminished. 
Topic's author
#34
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,299
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
But the real question you have to ask is whether an exit tax is justified to fund corporate welfare in California.
#35
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,304
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
But most of it did happen without massive outlays of corporate welfare
Ya, it happened by exploiting immigrant labor and a lack of regulations and labor laws. It’s pretty easy to be successful when you have a monopoly.

Topic's author
#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,299
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
California has plenty of immigrants and regulations. Why do they need an exit tax for people fleeing the disaster?
#37
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,014
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
Exactly, that's what honest people do when they can't steal.

But do they have a right to not set a price, tell you that you're benefiting from what they do, and then take what they deem fit and use it for what they deem fit?
you aren't making any sense. You are comparing a business producing and selling a product to a government providing a service. Your rambling is just nonsense. 
I'm making perfect sense, you're evading. Let me make it super explicit so that is as difficult as possible:


You said:
But the state provides services that are critically important. Therefore we all have a duty to pay into the system to make sure those services are provided. 
The implied argument is:

If X is a critical service, then we all have a duty to pay into the system make sure those services are provided.

If the argument was valid, then any "critical service" could be substituted in for X.

Substitute bread. Substitute steel. Substitute housing.

Now observe "the system" is supposedly the provider of these "critical services".

If the provider is US steel, or the USSR; then it follows that those organizations are owed whatever they claim is necessary to provide the "critical service".

So I asked if you would accept US steel taking an arbitrary amount from you and providing society with an arbitrary amount of steel.

You dodge the question.


Every time they pay another person or company they are paying their fair share. You may have known the fact, but you do not understand the implication. A man who interacts by honestly gained consent cannot be a thief.
No, they are one rich person paying another rich person. That is not "paying their fair share" if both those rich men made their fortunes using public funds, then amass huge amounts of wealth while their workers struggle to stay afloat and the resources they took advantage of to amass their wealth wither. 
So you claim they owe the worker despite the worker agreeing to work for the pay they did. This is not a justification for taxes but fixed higher wages (and it fails to be that in the next tier of analysis).


Thus no one owes taxes.
lol so go live on a deserted island somewhere.
You first, mine is the civilized worldview. You stand in defense of the diseases of civilization while I defend its core.


If you want to live in a country, you pay taxes. Im sure small children could explain it to you. 
They'd also explain that darkies were made to be slaves by god in certain times and places. Children repeat what they hear. A child becomes a healthy adult only when he learns to look at the world through the lens of logic.


If I built the parking lot the analogy is sound.
lol no. Because just because you own a parking lot, does not mean you get to determine the laws that apply to that parking lot. 
No, the people with the biggest guns always decide. But I would have the right to decide.


Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
ok. so let's remove the vote. the same thing would be for dinner. You pretending like voting is the problem in that scenario is just childish. 
I never said voting was the problem. I was pointing out that voting doesn't make an immoral action moral, which is what you implied by saying "Individuals each have the same amount of say in this. A rich person should have no more say in this than a poor person. "

Being on the losing side of a vote to violate your rights means your rights are violated all the same.


Apply your logic to consent for sexual contact, how do you feel about that?
lol seriously? we do. We have laws that determine what kind of sexual contact is ok. Those laws are decided by the government, which is voted on by the people. How is this news to you?
...and if the government decided that a person was hoarding their body and it was time to pay their fair share would it be any less rape because people voted on it?

The law is that the person's consent is indispensable. There is no other legal way to gain use of their body. This is moral, not because it was voted upon but because it is logically derived from a universal value.

That is also the moral situation for genuine property, but those who would be thieves and rapists will easily form excuses for why they are owed what they want.
Topic's author
#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,299
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So I asked if you would accept US steel taking an arbitrary amount from you and providing society with an arbitrary amount of steel.
Isn't this what is essentially happening with the current corporate welfare? This is reality, not a hypothetical.
#39
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,014
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
So I asked if you would accept US steel taking an arbitrary amount from you and providing society with an arbitrary amount of steel.
Isn't this what is essentially happening with the current corporate welfare? This is reality, not a hypothetical.
Yes it is, but it is not the fiction that people believe.

The fiction is what HistoryBuff is explaining, magic debt to society because government suffuses the world with light and happiness and since the rich have good lives compared to the poor their magic debt is the greater.

The reality is that a corrupt merger of some giant corporations and some politicians act to establish and maintain a giant money laundering scheme where they steal from the citizenry through various means and redistribute that wealth to the corrupt individuals with paltry excuses such as roads and education.

The reality is that these public goods and services should cost only 1/5 to 1/10th of what they do, and even at the enormous markup they represent only a tiny proportion of public spending.

In short these thugs are stealing $1000, buying you a $100 sub and claiming that's a fair and necessary state of affairs; while a sub should cost $10 (in this example).

The corrupt politicians and the corrupt owners/leaders of those corporations do indeed become part of "the rich", but the problem isn't "the rich" it's the lying bastards who are stealing our money.

Also government employees who don't produce much are also benefiting from stolen goods, they are not paying their fair share; even if they're middle or lower class economically.

The problem is that the fiction HistoryBuff believes in is the reason they're getting away with it. We will never stop this crime so long as there exists a legal and socially acceptable way to steal. Power corrupts.
#40
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,304
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
California has plenty of immigrants and regulations. Why do they need an exit tax for people fleeing the disaster?
First of all, regulations for the economy come from the Federal government. 

Second, the exit tax is completely appropriate 

The California Exit Tax was proposed for two purposes. The first purpose is to protect the state. The idea is that California should recoup the money the state invested in the development of that wealth, such as tax breaks, financial incentives, and infrastructure support. These were all investments that the state gave to a business, individual, or the public at large in the spirit that they would remain in the state for a long enough time for the state to reap the benefits of having the business there.

The second purpose is to help close a capital gains loophole where people would move out of California and liquidate their assets in another state to avoid taxes. This type of movement purely to avoid paying taxes is unattractive both from the perspective of state finance and from the perspective of social stability.

If your tax year valuation is greater than $30 million (or $15 million if a spouse is filing separately), then the Exit Tax may apply to you. People whose tax year valuation falls below this will be unaffected when moving to different parts of the country.

Guess you didn’t get that from YouTube. Because you’re a dummy.

Look at the idiots who think this affects poor people. 



#41
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
But the real question you have to ask is whether an exit tax is justified to fund corporate welfare in California.
that's a loaded question. You are taking 2 semi related things and making them directly correlated. Is stopping rich people from tax dodging justified? yes. Is corporate welfare a good thing? no, but it's not the sort of thing that can be stopped in one state. If california refused to do it, they'd just move to texas or something. They'd still get all the same government handouts, but california would now just have a economic crisis. 
#42
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If X is a critical service, then we all have a duty to pay into the system make sure those services are provided.
no, that is not correct. There are lots of critical services that don't need direct government control because the profit motive and the public good largely overlap. For example, telecommunications. Companies have a profit motive to build bigger, better communications systems to provide better service and get more customers. You don't need the government to build it themselves. But there are services where the profit motive and public good do not overlap. Some examples are mail service, roads, health care etc. In these, companies are incentivized to only provide service to those people and in those areas where they make the most profit. So companies fail to provide service to many, many people. And in these areas, failure to provide service would cripple the economy. Imagine if roads only got built in urban areas because building and maintaining them in rural areas was too expensive. Large sections of the country would be basicly unusable. 

So you claim they owe the worker despite the worker agreeing to work for the pay they did.
lol your argument is terrible. So if I tell a worker, work for 1 dollar a day or I'll kill you, as long as they agree to it that is fine. Or if I tell them, work for 1 dollar a day, or I'll force the bank to foreclose on your home and throw your family into the street. That's also great by your definition. The fact that workers have been getting poorer while business owners have been getting richer for decades is a very bad thing. 

You first, mine is the civilized worldview. You stand in defense of the diseases of civilization while I defend its core.
are you high? literally nowhere in the world agrees with your view. Literally every country collects taxes and could not exist if they didn't. 

 never said voting was the problem. I was pointing out that voting doesn't make an immoral action moral, which is what you implied by saying "Individuals each have the same amount of say in this. A rich person should have no more say in this than a poor person. "
fair enough. but you don't have a right to not pay taxes. and taxes are not immoral. They are literally the core of a functional society. 

...and if the government decided that a person was hoarding their body and it was time to pay their fair share would it be any less rape because people voted on it?
I mean, by definition yes. Men used to have a legal right to have sex with their wives, even against their will. It was perfectly legal. Now we recognize that women are legal people too with legal protections separate from their husbands, so now they have a right to control their body. So yes, absolutely. People have the right to vote on what is or isn't acceptable and as we change over time, what is acceptable changes too. 

#43
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,014
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
If X is a critical service, then we all have a duty to pay into the system make sure those services are provided.
no, that is not correct. There are lots of critical services that don't need direct government control because the profit motive and the public good largely overlap. For example, telecommunications. Companies have a profit motive to build bigger, better communications systems to provide better service and get more customers. You don't need the government to build it themselves. But there are services where the profit motive and public good do not overlap.
You shift the context.

The issue is not "what needs direct government control", that is a different matter entirely.

The issue is from whence the duty to pay comes.

If someone provides a service or good, regardless of whether it is truly critical; do they get to set the price and use force to extract it from you?

If you don't like my formulation of your argument, write it precisely yourself. The question:

Why does anyone owe the government anything?


So you claim they owe the worker despite the worker agreeing to work for the pay they did.
lol your argument is terrible. So if I tell a worker, work for 1 dollar a day or I'll kill you, as long as they agree to it that is fine.
It's not consent if you need to use a threat to get it. It is illegal to threaten someone with physical violence for failing to agree to your terms (unless you're a government). This is thus irrelevant to "the rich" (unless they are part of a corruption scheme with the government).

Recall the context. You claimed the rich haven't paid their fair share because they "got rich off the worker".

That would imply the rich haven't "paid their fair share" to the worker, not the government. So if it justifies seizing wealth at all, it only justifies giving it directly to the workers.

But how can you form a corrupt money laundering scheme like that? It's not easy. Best to steal the money in the name of the worker and then claim profoundly ineffective government services are for their benefit.


You first, mine is the civilized worldview. You stand in defense of the diseases of civilization while I defend its core.
are you high? literally nowhere in the world agrees with your view.
Logic agrees with my view. (logic created it)


Literally every country collects taxes and could not exist if they didn't.
Government does not require theft. Clear your mind of prejudices you learned as a child and you will see this is obvious.


fair enough. but you don't have a right to not pay taxes. and taxes are not immoral.
Taxes are theft, and theft is immoral. "Right to not", deceptive description. It is the government that uses military force against me if I fail to pay them. They do not have the right to do that because failing to pay them does not violate anyone's rights.


...and if the government decided that a person was hoarding their body and it was time to pay their fair share would it be any less rape because people voted on it?
I mean, by definition yes. Men used to have a legal right to have sex with their wives, even against their will. It was perfectly legal. Now we recognize that women are legal people too with legal protections separate from their husbands, so now they have a right to control their body. So yes, absolutely. People have the right to vote on what is or isn't acceptable and as we change over time, what is acceptable changes too. 
Dodge.

You said "Yes", then you said people have a right to vote on what is or isn't acceptable.

That implies that people have a right to vote that rape is acceptable. True or false?
Topic's author
#44
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,299
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Government does not require theft. Clear your mind of prejudices you learned as a child and you will see this is obvious.
Imagine if the government operated like any normal private business and had to renew the contract with the people regarding taxes and services yearly instead of permanent contracts cradle to the grave. It's criminal that you can cancel a Netflix service subscription, but you can't cancel crappy government services.
#45
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,014
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Government does not require theft. Clear your mind of prejudices you learned as a child and you will see this is obvious.
Imagine if the government operated like any normal private business and had to renew the contract with the people regarding taxes and services yearly instead of permanent contracts cradle to the grave. It's criminal that you can cancel a Netflix service subscription, but you can't cancel crappy government services.
Oh, I have imagined in relatively minute detail :)

But like I said, that doesn't work out for the mega-gangs we refer to as the deep-state or military industrial complex. It doesn't work out for the people who see government as a means to attain wealth equality. So we continue the cycle until somewhere a seed is planted that of something evolutionary superior.

There are only two stable trajectories for humanity: fixed-liberal-ethics-constitutional-crypto-state or digital-surveillance-totalitarian-collectivist-state. Every moment we persist in these unstable semi-socialist-nation-states is an opportunity for a digital surveillance state to permanently enslave the species.

A ray of hope is the distribution of unstoppable nuclear weapons. The totalitarian state needs to conquer every nation from within since it cannot conquer by direct attack.
#46
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If someone provides a service or good, regardless of whether it is truly critical; do they get to set the price and use force to extract it from you?
these are public assets. We own them. If we don't like the price, we can easily remove the people in charge of them. It is true you are forced to pay, but you have control. 

Why does anyone owe the government anything?
because you are part of society. Anyone who is part of that society is required both by law and social contract to contribute to the prosperity and betterment of that society. If you don't want to do that, you are free to leave at any time assuming you can find another nation willing to take you, or some deserted island somewhere. You are not forced to pay taxes. You are not forced to be part of society. Only if you want to live here. 

It is illegal to threaten someone with physical violence for failing to agree to your terms (unless you're a government). This is thus irrelevant to "the rich" (unless they are part of a corruption scheme with the government).
what are you talking about? Our society is full of these threats. If you fail to work, you will be ruthlessly punished. Evicted, starved, left to be sick and die. Since virtually all businesses have been progressively paying less and less, while costs go up, businesses have been driving millions into poverty knowing that their workers have no choice but to work. 

Logic agrees with my view. (logic created it)
so let me get this straight, there is literally no organized group in the world that agrees with you. Everyone knows your argument is stupid and would lead to the collapse of life as we know it, but "logic agrees with it". That's the debate version of "my mom thinks i'm cool". 

Government does not require theft. Clear your mind of prejudices you learned as a child and you will see this is obvious.
explain that then. How does a government govern if it cannot collect money with which to do anything? How does it pay anyone to do anything?

That implies that people have a right to vote that rape is acceptable. True or false?\
Rape was legal, not that long ago. I just described that to you. And yes, assuming they could convince enough people to support such a measure they could do so again. For example, some states are currently in the process of trying to go backwards and steal women's right to control their own body. that is obviously wrong, but being done right now.

Society still does lots of terrible things that in 50-100 years we will look back on and wonder how people could be so barbaric. 


Topic's author
#47
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,299
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
How does it pay anyone to do anything?
How does Netflix pay for anything? Monthly contracts. Government can make yearly subscription contracts for everyone, and it would be less costly than the current yearly tax preparation. There's nothing wrong with "pay to play"

In most civilized nations, they simply call this "your civic duty"

Want to cancel your subscription to aid the police? No 911 service to your address. Want to cancel your subscription to the military? No ability to use American banks for foreign investments.
#48
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
How does Netflix pay for anything? Monthly contracts. Government can make subscription contracts for everyone, and it would be less costly than the current tax preparation. There's nothing wrong with "pay to play"
and how would these "contracts" work? You sign a contract to use the roads? you sign a contract to be protected by the military? You sign a contract to be eligible for mail service? You sign a contract to have a member of congress represent you? You sign a contract to be protect by fire fighters? People would need to sign dozens of contracts with the government. And presumably some of them wouldn't be optional, like the military. Everyone is protected, so it's not like you could let people opt out. The military is for alot more than foreign investment. 

This sounds like an excellent way to destroy society. 
Topic's author
#49
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,299
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
You sign a contract to use the roads? 
You actually already do this through the licensure process.

What do you think "social contract" means?

#50
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
You actually already do this through the licensure process.
ok so you are saying the goal is to make people sign dozens of contracts with the government? that is what you want?

Also, some of them can't really be optional. Like police services. Crime doesn't stay localized to one location and one person most of the time. The person being mugged didn't pay their police contract, better luck next time. Allowing crime to happen is bad for everyone. And fire fighters. Letting a house burn down because they didn't pay for fire fighters isn't really an option. Fires spread from one house to the next, or from one apartment/condo to the next. You can't let one burn without affecting others. 

I mean, think about if they didn't pay for mail and companies couldn't mail out bills or other information. It would wreak havoc on businesses. 
Topic's author
#51
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,299
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
ok so you are saying the goal is to make people sign dozens of contracts with the government? that is what you want?
The average current annual tax form has hundreds of check boxes. It wouldn't be hard.

Also, some of them can't really be optional. Like police services. Crime doesn't stay localized to one location and one person most of the time. The person being mugged didn't pay their police contract, better luck next time. Allowing crime to happen is bad for everyone.
Law enforcement is already discretionary with "no go zones" Contracts would make these discretions more equitable and fair. Pay to Play.

While crime itself may not be localized, a DA oversees an entire district. Contracts would make DA discretions more equitable and fair. Didn't check the box for police? We won't be pressing charges against your mugger. This already happens. (Just look at all the refused prosecutions in large cities) It would just be more fair with explicit contracts.

And fire fighters. Letting a house burn down because they didn't pay for fire fighters isn't really an option. Fires spread from one house to the next, or from one apartment/condo to the next. You can't let one burn without affecting others. 
Oddly enough, that's exactly what happens in a lot of fires. Firefighters will focus on dousing nearby houses and let the center house burn itself out. A contract system would ensure that firefighters would make a best effort to saving the burning house.

One great knock-on benefit of having explicit social contracts is that it would force compliance of the government service providers through contract law.

With the current system, you can't sue the government due to sovereign immunity.

#52
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
The average current annual tax form has hundreds of check boxes. It wouldn't be hard.
yes, yes it would. It would be an insanely difficult and bureaucratic task for both average people as well as the government. 

Law enforcement is already discretionary with "no go zones" Contracts would make these discretions more equitable and fair. Pay to Play.
no, it would make a current problem much, much worse. If you are someone who does pay for police service in an area where most don't, do you think they will show up? it would turn large parts of the country into lawless wasteland. 

While crime itself may not be localized, a DA oversees an entire district. Contracts would make DA discretions more equitable and fair. Didn't check the box for police? We won't be pressing charges against your mugger. This already happens. (Just look at all the refused prosecutions in large cities) It would just be more fair with explicit contracts.
lol what? you would just be allowing crime to run unchecked. Criminals would know for sure who they can victimize. This would be pure insanity. 

Oddly enough, that's exactly what happens in a lot of fires. Firefighters will focus on dousing nearby houses and let the center house burn itself out. A contract system would ensure that firefighters would make a best effort to saving the burning house.
you are pointing out specific cases where the original house can't be saved so they focus on protecting surounding houses as evidence that we should selectively let houses burn? that is super weak. how would this work in a city? my apartment/condo is allowed to burn but the one above it isn't?

One great knock-on benefit of having explicit social contracts is that it would force compliance of the government service providers through contract law.
how? they would use the same excuses as now. Sorry, couldn't get there in time. It would either open them up to being sued for doing their job, which would destroy the system, or it wouldn't do anything which would be no different than now. So no, it wouldn't open them up to contract law, or if it did, not for long. 

With the current system, you can't sue the government due to sovereign immunity.
and you still wouldn't be able to. Either they would be immune, they would find excuses to get out of it anyway (i tried but couldn't get there in time), or they would go bankrupt. There are no other options. 
Topic's author
#53
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,299
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
 Either they would be immune, 
No.
Topic's author
#54
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,299
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
The military is for alot more than foreign investment. 
This actually made me chuckle hard. Most of what the military does today is exactly for this.
#55
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Either they would be immune, 
No.
lol no what? a firefighter can't promise they will save your house. So either you can't sue them for it (IE they are immune), or they go bankrupt from being sued repeatedly every time someone isn't happy with the degree of fire protection they get, which would be frequently. So either the system collapses, or they are immune. 

This actually made me chuckle hard. Most of what the military does today is exactly for this.
It's true,  we are in a rare period in world history where major powers simply don't go to war. But this is not the norm. Assuming that the way things have been for the past few decades is how things will be forever is very short sighted. If funding the military was optional, most americans wouldn't do it. Then the military would be like 5% the size it is today. Then china and Russia and any other dictator with delusions of grandeur start conquering their neighbors. And that would have very real negative impacts on America. 
Topic's author
#56
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,299
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
a firefighter can't promise they will save your house
Under the current system this is true. This is the same for police under the current system. Many court rulings affirm police have no obligation to try and help you.

A contract would enforce that obligation. There's no false dichotomy. Contract failure doesn't mean bankruptcy, but it would mean accountability, which would mean a restructuring of the police (administration getting fired, policies re-written, competent personnel hired) to avoid penalties. True police reform via existing contract laws.

start conquering their neighbors
Afghanistan proved without a doubt that an armed populace is impossible to conquer, no matter how big your army is. Russia could never hope to control Ukraine if the population revolts, which is the real reason why Russia only wants the Donbas because only the Donbas wants Russia.

The Swiss established the norm that an armed populace can't be conquered. That's the rule, not the exception. A national army is an outdated feature of government today due to industrialization and modern technology that allows everyone to own lethal force.
#57
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
A contract would enforce that obligation. There's no false dichotomy. Contract failure doesn't mean bankruptcy, but it would mean accountability, which would mean a restructuring of the police (administration getting fired, policies re-written, competent personnel hired) to avoid penalties. True police reform via existing contract laws.
you aren't addressing my point. Either the new contracts would be pretty much identical to the way it works now, or they would go bankrupt. No one can guarantee that your house can be saved. No one can guarantee that they can reach you in time to save you from being mugged, or assaulted etc. So either the contracts would be so loose and vague as to allow them to not be sued if they try and fail, or they would get sued constantly for doing their job and go bankrupt. 

Afghanistan proved without a doubt that an armed populace is impossible to conquer, no matter how big your army is.
no they didn't. They proved that a populace being funded and armed heavily by outside powers with vast areas full of mountains and caves are impossible to conquer. No foreign empire has successfully conquered Afghanistan since Alexander the great. 

Russia could never hope to control Ukraine if the population revolts, which is the real reason why they only want the Donbas because only the Donbas wants Russia.
except they have repeatedly said that Ukraine isn't a real country and Ukrainians aren't a real ethnicity. they were planning on annexing Ukraine. They failed miserably. And Russia has proven that you absolutely can occupy foreign countries. They successfully suppressed the Chechens, and invaded Georgia. 

The Swiss established the norm that an armed populace can't be conquered. That's the rule, not the exception. 
what? where are you getting this idea from. The swiss got invaded repeatedly historically. And no one has tried recently because they are surounded by mountains and aren't worth the trouble. No one decided "I think i will avoid the swiss populace". They decided to avoid fighting their way through mountains. 

 A national army is an outdated feature of government today due to industrialization and modern technology that allows everyone to own lethal force.
no one can possibly believe this. I can't even wrap my head around how ridiculous that statement is. A rifle will not help you if the invading army is willing to bomb your city to the ground. Or they can pick you off with drones. The reason why the west has a hard time occupying foreign countries is because they have to pretend to be there to help. So they can't ethnically cleanse the locals. The russians and chinese do not have that problem. And the russians in Ukraine were not stopped by civilians with guns, they were stopped by a military that was better trained and led. 
Topic's author
#58
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,299
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10

The Soviet war was more bloody - it left 1.5 million dead compared to an estimated 100,000 casualties this time around, but this current war has been far more expensive. The Soviets spent only $2bn (£1.2bn) a year in Afghanistan while the US has already spent more than $700bn (£418bn).

Vietnam...unconquerable...Iraq was also a failure as the current government is a mess and not entirely allied with USA...Korea Unconquered...Syria unwinnable. Libya, a smoldering mess much like Iraq...

Conquering your neighbors is a relic of the past.

Topic's author
#59
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,299
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Either the new contracts would be pretty much identical to the way it works now
Absolutely not. Most police contracts today are drawn up by a government committee. If contracts were instead drawn up to ensure the public would opt in, they would look nowhere near the same.
Topic's author
#60
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,299
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
 They successfully suppressed the Chechens, and invaded Georgia. 
Only because those places are filled with culturally Russian people. Chechens in the capitol speak Russian. Around 80% of the people speak Russian. That can't possibly happen in territories with no Russian culture without severe armed revolt.