Libertarianism And 'voluntary' Slavery

If there ever managed to be a Libertarian government, what would it do about 'voluntary' slavery?

Imagine that someone is unable to find work, owns no property, cannot find a charity that isn't corrupt, cannot afford medical bills and is suddenly faced with the very real prospect of starvation. Along comes Richie McRicherson and offers to trade food and shelter in exchange for him signing away his freedom for the rest of his life. The contract is legally binding and cannot be broken, and breaking it will result in strict penalties under the law. He may have the option to 'buy' his freedom, but it is quite obvious that his salary will ensure that he is never able to afford to do so.

He is not forced to sign the contract, but if he does not, he will surely die.

How would libertarians deal with this?

 

Libertarians believe that people have the right to contract themselves freely in any manner they see fit so long as they do not harm others in the process. Indenturing yourself to another for whatever reason is nothing more than a contract between the two parties. If we think about it a bit, people do this all the time anyway, it is just called a job. If you don't work, you will find it hard to acquire the things needful for life. This used to be common practice not that long ago and throughout history.

The contract is strictly between the two parties and if one side or the other didn't keep up with their side of the bargain, then hopefully there would be a libertarian or similar organization in place that administers justice and the parties would have somewhere to go to settle the differences. If not, then the injured party would have recourse to just leave.

There are no magic answers in libertarianism or similar philosophies for a scenerio such as this. Mostly, the libertarian philosophy stands on the premise that individuals are responsible for themselves, and if they were to run into trouble due to the decisions they make in their life, or have thrust upon them, then they may have to resort to this sort of thing or similar in order to live. For some people, it would be a great thing, so long as they could negotiate a favorable contract, and the other party did not take advantage of it, which is always a very good possibility.

The deciding factor in something like this is how corrupt a legal system would be that would enforce the terms of the contract. One similar to what we currently have in the States would spell doom for the indentured party.

Personally, I beleive that in any community there are enough people that care about others to try to help people get back on their feet, and that is where help for others needs to come from, the community, not some government or similar organization.

 

Still

Localism is fine up to a point but only up to a point, for example a communities are often made up of differing areas so its possible to have a prosperous area of a community, with high employment at well paid jobs, and so its likely the people there would ‘evaluate’ the needs of their area and find little reason to give money or assistance since there are few disadvantaged.

But only a few miles away there could be another part of the community with high unemployment or employment in low paid jobs with all the problems socially that that can entail, but the people there have little ability to give money or assistance.

In such a situation it is often government or similar organizations with the duty, time, and knowledge to ‘evaluate’ things over the whole community that can move resources to those places where it is most needed.

The easiest way of doing that is through tax.

It is then that you can get self serving arguments or ones based in prejudice and bias.

- are they really part of ‘my’ community in ‘my’ community people don’t need so much help probably because they work harder than those feckless scroungers in that ‘other’ community.

Basically the ‘community’ argument can be used to advantage wealth to the detriment of the disadvantaged.

 

In your opinion then forced slavery where you have no say in the terms of the indenture is preferred over one where the party who needs the help is able to negotiate the terms of the indenture so that they are able to one day end it, possibly profit from it, and assure that they have recourse to abuses to the contract.

A libertarian system would have a legal system in place that would enforce the terms of contracts as they are written, in this case, indentured servitude. History has shown that this sort of thing can actually be beneficial to the indentured party. The Hebrews had a fairly involved system in place for this sort of thing, for instance.

Your system would mean that everyone has to give up at lease some of their property under duress, and without recourse, whether your property is actually needed or not. Fail to do so and you are penalized, and eventually end up in some form of prison, still owing the enforced debt. The beauracracy that arises around such a system always becomes self serving, bloated, and out of control, so the taxes never go down, and the penalties always get harsher. We know this to be true as it is happening to this very day under the US system.

I believe the word slave used in the context of the OP and for other purposes means: "a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person". The OP's question regards an indenture - "a contract by which a person, as an apprentice, is bound to service." The terms of the contract would be enforceable under whatever passes for the law in the fictional realm being discussed. So that sytem means one where people only give up something of themselves if they want to. Granted, it would possibly be due to hard times for that person, but there will always be hard times regardless of what sort of organization runs things.

The sort of system you opine is already in place, in this country, and appears to be actually putting more and more people into the sort of situations it is supposed to be helping them get away from. Working people, the ones the systems supported by tax dollars is supposed to help, have less income to spend on the neccesities they need. The last time I looked, 55% of working peoples incomes are taken from them in one form of tax or another. That only leaves 45% for people to live on. How does that help? Current welfare policies allow people to be in the system for 5 years. After that you are booted off and may qualify for a small amount of food stamps, but not enough to make a difference. The system was originally designed as a helping hand, but like all government systems eventually become out of control spending monsters, with most of the money going to pay salaries most non-governmental employees can only hope to obtain, someday. So your system doesn't work either, and the outcome is still the same, the people are left to rely on whatever they can to exist, once the so called benefits run out. So your argument about a better system is invalid since it is proven that the outcome is the same. Those people who fall on hard times are ultimately left to fend for themselves, if they cannot turn their situation around.

I peruse the classifieds at IC.org occasionally as I am interested in intentional communities. I have noticed more and more of them are from people who are in desperate straights looking for some place to live. No money, no job, no place to live. So, your system has already failed. It appears that people are already turning to the system espoused by anarchists and libertarians for help. The difference is that in the latter system, the people have no free ride, everyone is expected to pitch in for the good of those who voluntarily join for the common benefit of everyone involved. So, in my opinion, the small community system very similar to that found in some of the intentional communities is more beneficial than the one you espouse whereby people are forced under duress to give up their property to support people who have done nothing to earn that support, are ultimately cut off from ongoing support, and end up right back where they were to start with. I believe the small community system is a better system.

 

Still

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I don’t believe I’ve talked about slavery or the indenture system here yet, but am happy to go over it but can you please address the points I raised on localism – I mean we have been here before in such threads as ‘Flawed Libertarianism’[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]http://www.hipforums.com/forum/topic/463421-flawed-libertarianism/[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Where you would often evaded answering or addressing criticisms of your ideas.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Anyway as explained to you before the problem with your right wing libertarianism is that it doesn’t seem to take into account the real world problem of inequality.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]As pointed out RWL ideas are likely to increase inequality and history has shown that without strong mechanisms to prevent it (which RWL would lessen or remove) the advantaged would most likely end up exploiting the disadvantaged. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But the advantaged would most likely dominate the legal system if is had the power and influence to do so (this has been histories lesson) and under a right wing libertarian system where the already advantaged would have vastly greater advantage. It would seem to me that the most likely outcome would be that the advantaged would have the power and influence to bring in laws (and repeal others) to their own advantage. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And in a system where you pay for what you get the disadvantaged may not be able to afford any legal fees while the advantaged could afford a dedicated legal team. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And the vast majority of history involves the exploitation of the disadvantaged by the advantaged from ancient history up to the industrial period, for example just look at the treatment of women, I mean even in many countries in the liberal west it is still going on (lower pay for the same work, little or no maternity leave, the glass ceiling etc).[/SIZE]

 

Could you please explain? I mean I’ve listed the 2015 income tax brackets below and there is no 55%.



2015 tax brackets (for taxes due April 15, 2016)

Tax rate​

Single filers​

Married filing jointly or qualifying widow/widower​

Married filing separately​

Head of household​

10%


Up to $9,225


Up to $18,450


Up to $9,225


Up to $13,150


15%


$9,226 to $37,450


$18,451 to $74,900


$9,226 to $37,450


$13,151 to $50,200


25%


$37,451 to $90,750


$74,901 to $151,200


$37,451 to $75,600


$50,201 to $129,600


28%


$90,751 to $189,300


$151,201 to $230,450


$75,601 to $115,225


$129,601 to $209,850


33%


$189,301 to $411,500


$230,451 to $411,500


$115,226 to $205,750


$209,851 to $411,500


35%


$411,501 to $413,200


$411,501 to $464,850


$205,751 to $232,425


$411,501 to $439,000


39.6%


$413,201 or more


$464,851 or more


$232,426 or more


$439,001 or more

Also remember that a lot of benefits go to people who are working, but who are not receiving a living wage.

It is said that “out of families with children suffering from food insecurity and hunger, 68 percent contained at least one adult working full-time, 10 percent had at least one adult working part-time, seven percent had an unemployed adult actively looking for work, and eight percent were headed by an adult with a disability. The main problem is low wages and few jobs, not laziness.”
http://www.hipforums...azy#post7450565

Also when the US was doing well economically and there was a huge rise in the number of middle class families - was in the period from the end of WWII to the rise of neoliberal ideas, a period when more distributive polices were in place.

But in the thirty odd years of free market/neoliberal ideas that right wing libertarians like yourself seem to follow there was a huge increase in the wealth of a few while the real term incomes of those below have either stagnated or fallen bringing about a social and political system where wealth has gained great power and influence.

The problem I see with many right wing libertarian ideas…is that it would most likely increase the power and influence of wealth even further while making life worse for most people in society through the implementation of even greater neoliberal policies.

and the tax cut you seem to suggest would favour the advantaged by increasing the power and influence of wealth, people at the low end of the scale wouldn’t receive back anything like those at the top. It gives disposable wealth to those who least need it and going by history they would only use it to further their own interests.

Let us say that there was a simple 10% tax and it was returned.

So someone earning 1000 gets back 100 dollars not much


10,000 = 1000 still not much

(Average wage in US is around 40,000 so it would be 4000 dollars)

100,000 = 10,000 now that’s better
[“According to the census bureau, 21.8% of FAMILIES made over $100,000 a year” even fewer individuals]

1,000,000 = 100,000 now you’re getting serious money

[People and households earning $1 million or more annually made up just 0.1 percent, or just over 235,000, of the 140 million tax returns filed in 2009]
10,000,000 = 1,000,000 that will buy a lot of influence

[ just 8,274 returns were filed by people making $10 million or more – 0.003% of 300 million is 9000]

100,000,000 = 10,000,000 and that a whole lot more.

1 Billion = 100,000,000

There are only about 425 billionaires in the US – 0.00015% of 300 million is 450

To me that’s bad enough but actually there is progressive taxation in the US meaning the wealthy pay more and so would get vastly more back if taxes were reduced.

 

As said it’s not ‘my system’ so your whole premise is flawed, as is the rest of your thinking on this subject the introduction of free market ideas seems to have made things worse rather than better so to encourage right wing libertarian free market ideas that go even further down that route seems like folly.

Fall in top rate tax
1945 - 94%
1970 – 70%
1982 - 50%
1990 - 28%
2010 – 33%

Rise in top levels of pay
In the 1950’s CEO pay was 25-50 times that of an average worker that had risen to 300-500 times by 2007.
A bigger gap than any other developed nation.

Trade deficit
1960 – Trade surplus of 3.5 billion
2008 – Trade deficit of 690 billion
(The last time the US posted a trade surplus was in 1975)

Decline in manufacturing
1965 - Manufacturing accounted for 53% of the US’s economy.
2004 – It accounted for 9%
The Economist (10/1/2005) stated: “For the first time since the industrial revolution, fewer than 10% of American workers are now employed in manufacturing.”

 

Still
Also remember a voluntary system of assistance has never worked
It should be remembered that private assistance was never capable on its own, it was always backed up or ran alongside public assistance. In the US this was based originally on the English Elizabethan poor laws, which the colonists had brought with them when they came to Americas.

Now even in upturns such private assistance as was given however genuine and heartfelt as it could be, could be inadequate, but during downturns that system was often overwhelmed (and giving could even drop in times of greatest need as people looked to their own needs).

“While the genuine warmth emanating from these volunteer institutions produced a true sense of community with revitalising effects in depressed urban neighbourhoods, participants quickly realised that private charity was not enough. Charity Organisation Societies modelled on those of London and Berlin had emerged in the early 1880’s to be succeeded by Associated Charities designed to prevent duplication of effort among the score of secular and church philanthropies, but relief measures possible under a system of private endeavour, no matter how earnest or how efficiently organised, could not handle the problems arising in periods of economic distress.
Public institutions to care for indigents, the ill, the widows and orphans, the aged and the insane never had money enough during boom times, and when hard times set in and the burden increased, city welfare budgets lagged still further behind the amounts needed.”
The Rise of Urban America by Constance Mclaughlin Green

Also on the forum such things as sewage works and housing amongst other things have been discussed where public money and government legislation did a lot to help to improve the lives of poor and middle class people.
http://www.hipforums...d.php?p=7470925

 

Still

Yes I understand that is your viewpoint but that still does not answer the criticisms levelled at it.
To repeat –
Localism is fine up to a point but only up to a point, for example a communities are often made up of differing areas so its possible to have a prosperous area of a community, with high employment at well paid jobs, and so its likely the people there would ‘evaluate’ the needs of their area and find little reason to give money or assistance since there are few disadvantaged.

But only a few miles away there could be another part of the community with high unemployment or employment in low paid jobs with all the problems socially that that can entail, but the people there have little ability to give money or assistance.

In such a situation it is often government or similar organizations with the duty, time, and knowledge to ‘evaluate’ things over the whole community that can move resources to those places where it is most needed.

The easiest way of doing that is through tax.

It is then that you can get self serving arguments or ones based in prejudice and bias.

- are they really part of ‘my’ community in ‘my’ community people don’t need so much help probably because they work harder than those feckless scroungers in that ‘other’ community. In other words why should I support people who have done nothing to earn that support

Basically the ‘community’ argument can be used to advantage wealth to the detriment of the disadvantaged.

 

The original OP posted about voluntary slavery, which is the same as indenturing oneself to another.

Please provide an example of where I have evaded answering anything put to me. If anyone were to read my posts in that thread they would see that I actually provided a fair amount of detail and supporting information from libertarian sites in an effort to answer the statements made by you and your alter ego Meagain. Whereas very little supporting information was provided to support the claims made by others in that thread. Please do not use innuendo to try to denegrate what I say.

You still do not understand that I am not a "right wing libertarian". You sure seem to be stuck on that political spectrum. Does it scare you so that some people are OK with running their own lives? You appear to beleive that only "right wing libertarians" would be responsible for a host of social ills that already are in effect under the current political menagerie found in this and other countries. As I have stated before, a libertarian government is, as of now, a hypothetical system and there is no way of judging how it would work. We do know, however, that what we have really doesn't work.

The rest of your post merely describes the current system, and I fail to see how it relates to a hypothetical libertarian legal system. We already know for a fact that there is no justice for the majority of people in this country who do not have large incomes, or the world, for that matter. Big money already owns all the legal systems in place. Just try to sue IBM, for example.

 

Take a look at this site: http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html
It admits that it does not cover all the taxes, and also the rates of the various taxes differ in different parts of the country. I don't have links to the sites I originally found my information on for the 55% figure, but I remember seeing it a lot when I was figuring out how much I paid personall
You are only looking at one tax. Everyone seems to forget that every little thing you buy from anywhere has more than one tax on it. You have the taxes relating to producing an item, generally in the form of income tax. Then, once an item leaves a factory, it has taxes associated with it for shipping. Some outright duty, imposts, and similar taxes. Then the fuel taxes come into play when a shipper is paid to move the item.
Every entity that handles the same product imposes a price for doing that. They have to pay taxes associated with the type of business they are in, which they in turn pass on to the end user. Taxes are generally based on the dollar figures involved, which is where the income tax comes into play. The so called "income tax" :
"Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word 'gain,' which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. 'Derived-from- capital'; 'the gain-derived-from-capital,' etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being 'derived'-that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description. "
The courts have ruled that it is not the income that is taxed, but the activity, and that the income is just used to measure how much tax is owed. So everytime someone engages in a taxable activity, they have to pay that tax, and then pass it on to the end user in order to recover that cost. So every product you buy has been taxed multiple times before it even reaches the shelves, and you get to pay all those multiple taxes.
Taxes are a whole other issue and one I would be happy to address in another thread. Suffice it to say that you cannot just look at the imposition of one tax and say that you really only pay very little. You have to take the whole spectrum of taxes into consideration, then deduct them all from your paycheck in order to get close to the real amount you are paying in taxes. The above web site provides insight into some of those.
I will get into the rest of your comments in a while, it is time for my walk.

 

Still

That’s ok I hope you have a good walk, I can wait and see if you address anything or decide you’ll cover it in some other time and place.
Or conclude that since the ideas you are promoting are ‘hypothetical’ you therefore don’t need to defend them from any criticisms.

Anyway no evasion in any of that, i'm sure.

 

It is the system you espouse, making it essentially your system, since you support it.
I notice here too, that you take the subject from what I was making a statement about, namely, the welfare system, and turn it into a tax issue. I would appreciate it if you would stick to the subjects discussed, it makes it difficult to answer when you jump around like you on the various subjects.
I stand by what I said in my original statement regarding the current welfare system does not work either, and ultimately the people using it are kicked off with no recourse once their "benefits" are used up. Then what do they do? As I also stated, they go looking for a group, like those found on IC.org, to hook up with so that they can exist. If not, then they end up on the street living off the cast offs from other people until they can somehow get back on their feet.

 

I is only your opinion that it does not work. It actually does work, take a look at Twin Oaks community and the other similar communities associated with it. They are income sharing, to be sure, but that does not negate the fact that they work just fine, and have for years.
I have no doubts that the private institiutions you reference here don't work well. Even so called non-profit organizations have to have money to operate, and if no one wants to donate, for whatever reason, then the organization won't work. However, this is not the sort of thing I mean when I talk about the people helping themselves. I believe I have stated it before in other threads that I am talking about small communities where people work together and help each other. Not a corporation with all the problems that go along with them.

 

What criticisms? So far you are the only one criticizing them. I think the problem here is that you are thinking in terms of organized, politically operated town sort of things, and I am talking about something entirely different. See my last post for what that is.
Your arguments are specious and only reflect what I think your personal politcal beliefs are, they do not really address the claims I make as you offer little or nothing other than your opinions to back up your statements.
No problem, though. I get it that you are more into someone else running your life. That is fine if you prefer a nanny state. I don't believe everyone agrees with that, though.
The OP was about libertarianism and voluntary slavery, how that would work. I stated my view, based on my own personal research derived from when I was interested in the libertarian philosophy.
If you prefer to discuss how government works and similar topics, I am really not interested. It does not work, in my view, and I am not for it, so any replies I would have on that subject would be in the negative from the start. The tax system you are enamoured of is, in my opinion, highly unfair, too much of the proceeds are used for activities that are not in the best interests of the people (the never ending wars, for example) and reduce the income of working people to the point where many have to struggle just to exist.

 

Not sure what exactly you are trying to say here but since you don't provide any examples of where I avoided answering questions put to me, (which you cannot since there are none), I won't worry about those claims of yours any longer.

I don't know what you consider "evasion", but considering the fact that both here and in the other libertarian thread you make reference to I did indeed answer any questions put to me up to a point I can only conclude that you are just being facetious in this instance. The "point" I make reference to here should have been clear to anyone who was reading that thread since I seem to remember specifically stating I would no longer discuss the issues being raised there for the reasons I also stated there.

So, all the replies I give above here, and gave in the other thread are not really answers? I guess in your book when someone answers you, you consider that to not be an answer??? I don't follow your logic here.

I am not promoting any ideas, just trying to discuss the various opics and answering questions and comments other people post to the best of my knowledge and providing reference material when I have it available. You don't have to like it, it is just information provided in answer to a question or comment. Yes, a libertarian government is hypothetical at this time so anything regarding one is pure speculation. I have, however, provided material and my personal opinion in regards to that issue about how those hopeful of having one some day predict how it would, or could work. What exactly is your problem with that?

I am curious about something though, do you feel threatened by people who don't follow along with the crowd as you seem to do? Do free thinking individuals bother you in some manner? Just trying to understand your constant attacks on what I say and your labeling me as being a "ring wing libertarian" when I have stated here and in the other thread that I was not even a libertarian of any kind.

 

Still

It’s not my system and I don’t support it – just saying it is doesn’t make it so you need to back up this statement with at least some kind of evidence.

But it is a tax issue, the easiest way to distribute wealth in a monetary based system for the good of the society as a whole is through taxation.

I was also pointing out the problem in your ideas with inequality and how your contract and tax system would give more power to the already advantaged.

I agree that the US welfare system needs reform so that it gets people back on their feet, but that has to be connected to a economic system that is working in that direction as well and right wing libertarian economics is not.
I’m saying that removing all taxation and basing welfare on voluntary contributions will not work because it hasn’t worked in the past.

I believe Twin Oaks has a 100 people supported by 450 acres of land and that’s great but it isn’t viable as a strategy for replacing welfare, there just isn’t the land for a start (without massive confiscations) it would reduce yields bring about starvation in urban areas and also not everyone would like to do that. Ok so you could have workers cooperatives in factories (how very Marxist) but again where are the factories coming from?

I could go on but lets stop there for now.

I run my life quiet happily but I’m under no illusions that circumstances not under my control can have an impact on my life and I know that not everyone has the personal resources to weather bad times.
I also realize that the infrastructure of this modern world often funded in whole or part by tax payer’s money helps me in many differing way, from roads, to education, to fire brigades to sewage to medical research and so on.

I’ve be critical of your views on localism you’ve reiterated your view but not addressed the criticism.

I’ve criticized your ideas on tax but say you’d only address them elsewhere.

I’ve raised the problems inherent in inequality to your ideas – you say that since your ideas are ‘hypothetical’ and you’ve not thought them through you’re not going to answer.
And I’ve been critical of your ‘community’ approach to welfare.

These are all things raised in the OP, in a right wing libertarian system of basically work or die how do you stop the advantaged exploiting the disadvantaged, the problem is that you don’t answer this in your reply to it, you just raise more question about your ideas that you seem unable or unwilling to answer

 

Still

I love free thinking individuals if they seem to have thought through what they are promoting.

You seem to be pushing a number of ideas that you don’t seem able to defend from criticism, but insist on saying that they are good ideas, that’s not being free thinking that’s been dogmatic.

 

But you do support taxes, you have been saying it all along, you never differentiated between some other tax system or the one found in this country, so it is easy to assume that you support any tax system. Name one that does not take another persons property away and give it to someone else who did not earn it. Why is it neccessary to "distribute wealth" for the good of society? How does taking property from someone and giving it to someone else make anything better? I have yet to see a valid reason for this argument. People have the right to what they earn.
I wasn't aware I posted any ideas about inequality or a contract and tax system. I do not agree with taxation in the manner it is conducted currently in any country, but I have never put forth any comments on a system for taxation. The only contract system I have ever mentioned pertains to the OP about how voluntary slavery applies to libertarianism. For the record, I have never heard of any libertarian expousing a system of slavery. However, libertarian philosphy states that each person has the right to do with themselves as they see fit, and so a libertarian government, if it followed the stated aims of libertarianism in general, would not stand in the way of someone who wanted to voluntarily indenture themselves to another

You say that a "right wing libertarian" economics system would not support some sort of welfare system to help people out in times of need, but you cannot know that for certain since there is not one and has never been one to try it out on, so your comments in that regard are pure conjecture. You can guess all you want, but this sort of commentary is absurd given the fact that it is all hypothetical.
Saying that the "tax and redistribute" method is better than voluntary contributions is in the same vein, and saying that a voluntary system would not work is not true. Prior to the modern welfare system people did indeed help each other considerably. The older members of my own family used to talk about how they helped each other out when times were tough. Not just family, but neighbors and the community in general. To be honest about that comment, I am sure that there were many people who needed help and did not get it, but the same is true with the modern welfare system. If the modern system was so great, there would not be homeless people living in cardboard boxes and eating out of dumpsters would there?

Yes, they do have a large chunk of land, however, they also do not use a large percentage of it for living and food production. I am not certain of the actual figures, but just reading their info on the web I do believe that a pretty large area is vacant and could be used to support quite a few more people. A large part of research I did for my own family years ago was trying to determine just how much land it would take to feed one adult for an entire year. I finally ran across the answer to that (sorry to say though that numerous computer changes that info was actually lost but I do run across simliar info from time to time) which is 4,000 sq ft per adult would produce enough food to feed that person for a year. This includes growing wheat for bread, etc. It is a largley vegetarian diet but people can live off that much ground. Given that Twin Oaks has 450 acres, If that is the number, I don't remember myself, that equates to 19,468,800 sq feet. If we only use half that number in order to allow for roads, housing, etc., that 450 acres could support about 2400 people, in food and housing. A quick search I just did states that the US has 1.9 billion acres of land in the lower US. The CIA fact book claims that 89% of that land is arable. This equates to 1.69 billion acres of arable land available to the population to use in order to exist. You can do the math from there. The problem does not lie in the amount of land, but in how it is used.
Large urban areas are the worst areas to live in terms of survival. So I guess if push came to shove and someone needed to survive, a change of lving would be in order, for certain.
Personally, I think cooperatives are a great way to accomplish things, if it is done right. Marxism be damned. People are too quick to attach labels to things in order to denigrate them in some manner to support their own views of how things should be. Cooperative farms would be a great thing. People wouldn't even have to own the land, just pool their resources and rent or lease. Factories the same thing. The appeal for me is that each worker owns a piece of the action and has a say in how it operates. I find that very appealing as opposed to the system in this country where the wealthy own all the income producing operations and people can work for what they are willing to pay or work elsewhere. You keep mentioning the inequality in your "right wing libertarian" scenerios, but I fail to see how the current system is any better.

And yet, in a libertarian system, as I pointed out in that other thread, these things are addressed, just in a different manner. Whether they would work or not remains to be seen.
Taxes are not spent equally. Take for instance gas taxes. They are collected by the taxing entities, pooled in some sort of fund, and then doled out wherever the powers that be decide they will go. Not where they may necessarily be needed, but completely at the mercy of those powers running things. Would nepotism, greed, pandering, and the like all take place to affect where that tax money goes? We know it does since it happens every day. According to one source I heard years ago, under a libertarian system any taxes such as that would stay in the area where they are collected, and that area would have to get by on what was spent there. This also means the money is managed by the local people for the local people, and it is easier to address any hanky panky with the money at the lower levels by the people most directly affected.

You cannot have criticized my ideas on tax as I have not put any forward other than to disagree with the need for them. My comment about discussing taxation was saying that if you wanted to discuss them, start another thread, since this one is about voluntary slavery.
You talk about inequality in a hypothetical setting, yet ignore the very apparent inequalities rampant in todays world, under the systems you espouse. I believe I have also made myself pretty clear in regards to this issue also. How can you say something will not work when it has not been tried? You can think about something all you want, but until you acually try it, you have no idea if it will work or not. Your criticisms to my approach on "community welfare" are based on those same fears you have about a hypothetical libertarian system. Again, how you can you criticize something that has not been tried? Community welfare systems though, have been tried, and worked just fine for millenia. How do you think people made it this far? It was by people helping each other. I can conjecture on your conjecture, but what would be the point? As I pointed out in the other thread, there are many, many websites dealing with libertarian issues. Some are sound, others not so sound. But to say they will not work when they have not been tried is just pointless, as is arguing with you about it. You cannot argue a hypothetical issue to a conclusion until it has been thoroughly tested.

 

I have offered the information provided by libertarian sources freely available to anyone willing to take the time to look into any issues they have with them. I do think many of them have merit, but I am also very aware they are untested, a fact I have voiced to you many times, but which you seem to refuse to understand.
You are also in error in your comment that I am "pushing a number of ideas". I have never "pushed" any libertarian ideals on anyone. I have tried to provide answers to questions concerning them, since I have a small knowledge of them, and I have provided documentation from libertarian sources which state how they think it will work. How is that "pushing ideas" on anyone? In your world is providing information to an individual who has a question on a subject "pushing Ideas" on others? By the way, I don't need to defend them, they are not my ideas. They are the stated platform of any number of libertarian organizations, I did not think them up, I have however, provided information derived from those organizations to people who have asked questions concerning libertarianism. So, your view that I am being dogmatic is also in error.