My question would be how does such a society plan for and fund major infrastructure projects?
Muddy lanes where sewage is tossed is not my idea of "freedom".

Originally Posted by sinjin

My question would be how does such a society plan for and fund major infrastructure projects?
Muddy lanes where sewage is tossed is not my idea of "freedom".

Provided the people system is implemented someone would propose the project.

The proposal can be expanded or modified based on public discussion, the mechanism being that anyone else can propose almost the exact same thing with some slight modification. When the idea is being developed there will be many variants, but they will be narrowed down eventually to one by the fact that only the one capable of attracting enough support (common agreement) will actually pass.

Pass in the case of a government action refers to the point when the budget required for the project has been guaranteed. Although lay people may propose ideas if the bill gains momentum experts (who have provided credentials to the voting system already) can analyze the idea for realism and provide informed estimates of how much it will cost (which may have to be paid for before hand). And of course since anyone may propose a bill a government agency can be formed to maintain and oversee infrastructure whose responsibility is to do the research and consistently propose efficient and useful bills in their area.

The budget is guaranteed because support in the system refers to legally binding promises to pay what ever value is pledged if the project should pass.

In a representative volitional society representatives could be vested with the power to spend a certain amount of money from each person who voted for them or otherwise agreed to the arrangement, these resources would be usable to pass bills much like above. (I hope you can see how this is redundant if we could do it the first way).

In either case a government agency could acquire the funds for further projects and enhancements from tolls on current infrastructure although I think this is not a good idea. People would want to pay to maintain the road they use and be presented with the option of building more separately.

The cost of new projects in general could be lumped together with a general fee for using public services as a whole. This is more like the current circumstance with taxes (except volitional), however I am strongly opposed to this not because it's necessarily immoral but because without the immoral coercion it will be a strong dissolving effect on society, in equal measure with how inflexible it is, while with something like the people system near perfect versatility is maintained, allowing participation and support of society to come from any vector.

Trying to 'make' people agree on how to spend their money is doomed to failure. If you had the people system now, but tried to retain the tax code except voluntary, the first thing people would do is start fracturing into funding groups. First along the two political parties, then within the parties, then again within those; until all you have is people recognizing that they only need to agree with each other on the particular project they are trying to accomplish and not on everything they want to do with their money.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I did not report you, I am not really a believer in bans; I am just pointing out how your behavior is specifically in contrast to the purpose of this site.

Report me, I don't really care. You're conduct in not only this thread but others is no different.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I read rule number 10 and that is the one you are violating the most. I am not repeating my link because I feel like wasting time, it is my response to your implications that my statement on taxation is 'only my opinion' or a 'dream'.

Posting the same link over and over being childish is breaking the rule. You keep telling yourself that you didn't do it, you're the only one believing it.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I am not going to change my response for the same statements just because you reword the same exact thing. It is therefore you that is guilty of rule 10, and thanks to my warning about responding only you.

I haven't "reworded" anything , at least not intentionally. I asked you direct questions and you reply by posting a link to an old post. All I tried to do was to get you to actually answer a question without playing ignorant words games . You failed to do so, therefore I have nothing else to say about Utopian Dream World.

Is there a rule about keeping threads at least related to the subject of the forum?

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

I have nothing else to say about Utopian Dream World.

Taxation is immoral, this is why.

What questions you have posed in a clear enough manner to be recognized as questions have been answered.

If you do not wish to argue, don't respond. Response will be taken as a wish to engage in debate.

Originally Posted by MrWriteLA

Is there a rule about keeping threads at least related to the subject of the forum?

The conversation turned this way because xcaliber advocated stealing money from someone to pay for the teaching of homosexual history.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Taxation is immoral, this is why.

What questions you have posed in a clear enough manner to be recognized as questions have been answered.

If you do not wish to argue, don't respond. Response will be taken as a wish to engage in debate.


The conversation turned this way because xcaliber advocated stealing money from someone to pay for the teaching of homosexual history.

No I advocated stealing only YOUR money to teach Gay History... I'm sure you can find some volunteers in your Utopian Delusion somewhere...

Oh my did I break a rule ?...

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

No I advocated stealing only YOUR money to teach Gay History... I'm sure you can find some volunteers in your Utopian Delusion somewhere...

Oh my did I break a rule ?...

Taxation is immoral, this is why.

If you do not wish to argue, don't respond. Response will be taken as a wish to engage in debate.

Yes you did break a rule, but of course you don't care; you only care about the rules you want to follow then your all 'law and order upright practical citizen'.

I am glad you understand the nature of your assertions, both your repetitive non-argument of dismissive ad hominems and indefensible treacheries with others rights.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Taxation is immoral, this is why.

If you do not wish to argue, don't respond. Response will be taken as a wish to engage in debate.

Yes you did break a rule, but of course you don't care; you only care about the rules you want to follow then your all 'law and order upright practical citizen'.

I am glad you understand the nature of your assertions, both your repetitive non-argument of dismissive ad hominems and indefensible treacheries with others rights.

And you continue to break the same rules XXXXXXX.... Grow up..

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

And you continue to break the same rules XXXXXXX.... Grow up..

Why do you continue to break the rules? I don't know maybe you like it. Here you are again responding with nothing to say and no argument.

Your dismissals are the same information, since you keep saying the same thing I can only assume that you haven't addressed the information in my response and you need a reminder. The complete lack of interest in a honest debate seems to be your consistent position; yet despite my warnings you continue to respond.

What is being exposed here is your delusional belief that if you get the last word in somehow your angry arrogant dismissive rhetoric actually meant something.

You will support your statements, respond to my arguments or this loop will continue. I am perfectly content to match my formal argument with your accusations of delusion forever.

Taxation is immoral, this is why.

If you do not wish to argue, don't respond. Response will be taken as a wish to engage in debate.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Why do you continue to break the rules? I don't know maybe you like it. Here you are again responding with nothing to say and no argument.

Your dismissals are the same information, since you keep saying the same thing I can only assume that you haven't addressed the information in my response and you need a reminder. The complete lack of interest in a honest debate seems to be your consistent position; yet despite my warnings you continue to respond.

What is being exposed here is your delusional belief that if you get the last word in somehow your angry arrogant dismissive rhetoric actually meant something.

You will support your statements, respond to my arguments or this loop will continue. I am perfectly content to match my formal argument with your accusations of delusion forever.

Taxation is immoral, this is why.

If you do not wish to argue, don't respond. Response will be taken as a wish to engage in debate.

You say the same thing, only difference is you're speaking from delusion so nothing you say makes sense. You think Taxes are Immoral.. yet you refuse to realize that it's YOUR opinion . Just because you think it so does not constitute Fact.. YOU NEED TO LEARN THIS.

You're acting like a complete dumbass, threatening to " Report me" for breaking rules that you yourself break with every post and then have the audacity to claim you are above reproach for your actions..

Post your link until your balls turn green, It doesn't change the FACT that Utopian Dream World in nothing more than an Delusional Theory Dreamed up by a Delusional Dumbass...

Get Over yourself,,

Now report that dumbass.. You think I care ...lmao...

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

You say the same thing, only difference is you're speaking from delusion so nothing you say makes sense. You think Taxes are Immoral.. yet you refuse to realize that it's YOUR opinion . Just because you think it so does not constitute Fact.. YOU NEED TO LEARN THIS.

You're acting like a complete dumbass, threatening to " Report me" for breaking rules that you yourself break with every post and then have the audacity to claim you are above reproach for your actions..

Post your link until your balls turn green, It doesn't change the FACT that Utopian Dream World in nothing more than an Delusional Theory Dreamed up by a Delusional Dumbass...

Get Over yourself,,

Now report that dumbass.. You think I care ...lmao...

Taxation is immoral, this is why.

If you do not wish to argue, don't respond. Response will be taken as a wish to engage in debate.

This is the type of things that they will be teaching in the schools.

‪Harvey Milk Speech‬‏ - YouTube

I guess the christianists don't like hope.

Originally Posted by Matthew S

This is the type of things that they will be teaching in the schools.

‪Harvey Milk Speech‬‏ - YouTube

I guess the christianists don't like hope.

Then you illustrate well why one should be against it. That was a terrible video. It basically advocated voting for homosexuals for some nebulous hope that was supposed help imaginary classes.

Asians? Blacks? Any video that buys into these delusions deserves to be ignored.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Then you illustrate well why one should be against it. That was a terrible video. It basically advocated voting for homosexuals for some nebulous hope that was supposed help imaginary classes.

Asians? Blacks? Any video that buys into these delusions deserves to be ignored.

I guess you don't get the message. There are Anita Byrants, and Brigs still out there today.

This law is a direct result of Mark Leno an openly gay elected representative.

I understand exactly what Harvey is saying as will most LGBT peoples. We must let those who come after us know what came before.


It is my volition to elect gay people to office, and pay taxes to support them. Remember this well there are black, Asian, and seniors that are gay.