5 ms·

It may be that the disagreement you're encountering is based on your acceptance of the premise that taxes are collected at gunpoint. It's extending a principle

by afshin 11y ago

It may be that the disagreement you're encountering is based on your acceptance of the premise that taxes are collected at gunpoint. It's extending a principle to an extreme logical conclusion and appealing to a formulaic interpretation of the world. It is divorced from the real world and makes the perfect the enemy of the good.

msandford 11y ago
> It may be that the disagreement you're encountering is based on your acceptance of the premise that taxes are collected at gunpoint. Isn't that true, though? I mean, the IRS doesn't send around a tax-person who carries a pistol or rifle or whatever, but the whole system is founded on the idea that "if you don't do what 'society' has agreed is the law, bad things (tm) can and probably will happen to you". Paying taxes isn't optional in the same way that getting a driver's license is optional. So it's literally true that taxes are collected through the subtle but ultimately real threat of violence. Maybe you won't be executed, maybe you won't be beaten, but you will be made to do things against your will like go to jail. Sure it's the extreme logical conclusion, but it's also the accurate one if you try not to pay.
mindcrime 11y ago
It's not even slightly divorced from the real world. If you don't "pay your taxes" they will eventually send men with guns to confiscate your property and/or arrest you. And if you try to protect yourself, said "men with guns" will fucking shoot you dead. That is reality. And it's absolutely horrifying.
- dagss 11y ago
  But it is nothing compared to the reality without taxes, where ANYONE (who can afford more men with guns than you can) can come and shoot you dead right away and take your property, not even giving you a chance to pay taxes (or vote) first.
  - msandford 11y ago
    > But it is nothing compared to the reality without taxes Technology has come a long way in the last 1000 or so years. I suspect that there are new solutions to the problem that you describe. But they don't get explored because the State has a monopoly on violence and is very resistant to change. Most of the time that's a good thing as it means that things get screwed up only very slowly. But it also tends to prevent things from getting better, too. Only the most egregious problems get solved.
    - Retra 11y ago
      Who would you rather be allowed to do violence other than an organization with a legal mandate to?
    - krapp 11y ago
      > But they don't get explored because the State has a monopoly on violence and is very resistant to change. Also, because most people consider the State and its monopoly on violence to be a perfectly adequate solution to the problem.
    - xg15 11y ago
      > Technology has come a long way in the last 1000 or so years. I suspect that there are new solutions to the problem that you describe. Then give a concrete example of such a solution. The current system (having a state actor) works more or less well in preventing power abuse by private entities. But shouldn't we wait with abolishing it until we have actually found a better solution?
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > But they don't get explored because the State has a monopoly on violence and is very resistant to change. No, wrong. Alternatives get explored all the time, and radical changes in the dominant role of social organization have happened over the 1000 year time period you discuss. You've anthropomorphized the abstract concept of the State improperly: the state is whatever entity or collection of entities taken together have a monopoly on legitimate violence, but the entities or collections which do that over time have changed quite rapidly -- the modern nation-state system is only a few hundred years old -- it is a fairly new model -- and there has been considerable evolution within that model (and its one that has been widely perceived as weakening in the face of evolving, powerful, non-nation-state actors of various types.)
- afshin 11y ago
  I'm pretty confident that the penalty for this crime, which has a name: "tax evasion", is not "men with guns will fucking shoot you dead".
  - msandford 11y ago
    Way to take his point completely out of context. Tax evasion doesn't get you killed, but resisting arrest for tax evasion just might end up with you dead.
    - afshin 11y ago
      But that's exactly the point: "point guns at law enforcement and you'll likely get killed" isn't quite as outrageous as "not paying your taxes gets you killed". Conflating those two only clouds the argument.
      - msandford 11y ago
        What you're saying is "The veneer is so civilized! What are you, a savage?" And what he's saying is "The thing underlying the veneer is pretty savage, which taints the idea that everything is so civilized" That's a point you seem to completely miss.
        afshin 11y ago
        I don't think that's accurate. What I'm saying is "taxes are not collected at gunpoint" and also "you will not be executed for failing to pay your taxes". You might be jailed for not paying your taxes. That's not a death sentence. If the counter-point is that you can escalate the situation by attempting to resist the state's monopoly on violence, then sure. I concede that. I don't believe the thing underlying the veneer is savage. Quite the contrary.
        msandford 11y ago
        The penalty for rejecting the state's assertion of its authority over you (whether legitimate or not) is generally death. At the hands of whatever agency has noticed your rejection. So if you think you shouldn't have to pay taxes, because the state isn't a legitimate authority, it's quite likely that you'll end up dying. Finally while taxes aren't collected directly by a person with a gun, failure to be sufficiently subservient while dealing with the state can result in your death. It's unfortunate that the state grants itself (in all its forms) much, much more privilege or leeway than any non-state actor would enjoy in a similar dispute. In other words, if you fail to pay a debt to another citizen or non-governmental entity, it's usually handled much, much differently than failing to pay a debt to the government. That double standard definitely doesn't feel right to many folks, and I think that's a very reasonable point to make.

by afshin 11y ago

msandford 11y ago

> It may be that the disagreement you're encountering is based on your acceptance of the premise that taxes are collected at gunpoint. Isn't that true, though? I mean, the IRS doesn't send around a tax-person who carries a pistol or rifle or whatever, but the whole system is founded on the idea that "if you don't do what 'society' has agreed is the law, bad things (tm) can and probably will happen to you". Paying taxes isn't optional in the same way that getting a driver's license is optional. So it's literally true that taxes are collected through the subtle but ultimately real threat of violence. Maybe you won't be executed, maybe you won't be beaten, but you will be made to do things against your will like go to jail. Sure it's the extreme logical conclusion, but it's also the accurate one if you try not to pay.

mindcrime 11y ago

It's not even slightly divorced from the real world. If you don't "pay your taxes" they will eventually send men with guns to confiscate your property and/or arrest you. And if you try to protect yourself, said "men with guns" will fucking shoot you dead. That is reality. And it's absolutely horrifying.

dagss 11y ago
But it is nothing compared to the reality without taxes, where ANYONE (who can afford more men with guns than you can) can come and shoot you dead right away and take your property, not even giving you a chance to pay taxes (or vote) first.
- msandford 11y ago
  > But it is nothing compared to the reality without taxes Technology has come a long way in the last 1000 or so years. I suspect that there are new solutions to the problem that you describe. But they don't get explored because the State has a monopoly on violence and is very resistant to change. Most of the time that's a good thing as it means that things get screwed up only very slowly. But it also tends to prevent things from getting better, too. Only the most egregious problems get solved.
  - Retra 11y ago
    Who would you rather be allowed to do violence other than an organization with a legal mandate to?
  - krapp 11y ago
    > But they don't get explored because the State has a monopoly on violence and is very resistant to change. Also, because most people consider the State and its monopoly on violence to be a perfectly adequate solution to the problem.
  - xg15 11y ago
    > Technology has come a long way in the last 1000 or so years. I suspect that there are new solutions to the problem that you describe. Then give a concrete example of such a solution. The current system (having a state actor) works more or less well in preventing power abuse by private entities. But shouldn't we wait with abolishing it until we have actually found a better solution?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > But they don't get explored because the State has a monopoly on violence and is very resistant to change. No, wrong. Alternatives get explored all the time, and radical changes in the dominant role of social organization have happened over the 1000 year time period you discuss. You've anthropomorphized the abstract concept of the State improperly: the state is whatever entity or collection of entities taken together have a monopoly on legitimate violence, but the entities or collections which do that over time have changed quite rapidly -- the modern nation-state system is only a few hundred years old -- it is a fairly new model -- and there has been considerable evolution within that model (and its one that has been widely perceived as weakening in the face of evolving, powerful, non-nation-state actors of various types.)
afshin 11y ago
I'm pretty confident that the penalty for this crime, which has a name: "tax evasion", is not "men with guns will fucking shoot you dead".
- msandford 11y ago
  Way to take his point completely out of context. Tax evasion doesn't get you killed, but resisting arrest for tax evasion just might end up with you dead.
  - afshin 11y ago
    But that's exactly the point: "point guns at law enforcement and you'll likely get killed" isn't quite as outrageous as "not paying your taxes gets you killed". Conflating those two only clouds the argument.
    - msandford 11y ago
      What you're saying is "The veneer is so civilized! What are you, a savage?" And what he's saying is "The thing underlying the veneer is pretty savage, which taints the idea that everything is so civilized" That's a point you seem to completely miss.
      - afshin 11y ago
        I don't think that's accurate. What I'm saying is "taxes are not collected at gunpoint" and also "you will not be executed for failing to pay your taxes". You might be jailed for not paying your taxes. That's not a death sentence. If the counter-point is that you can escalate the situation by attempting to resist the state's monopoly on violence, then sure. I concede that. I don't believe the thing underlying the veneer is savage. Quite the contrary.
        msandford 11y ago
        The penalty for rejecting the state's assertion of its authority over you (whether legitimate or not) is generally death. At the hands of whatever agency has noticed your rejection. So if you think you shouldn't have to pay taxes, because the state isn't a legitimate authority, it's quite likely that you'll end up dying. Finally while taxes aren't collected directly by a person with a gun, failure to be sufficiently subservient while dealing with the state can result in your death. It's unfortunate that the state grants itself (in all its forms) much, much more privilege or leeway than any non-state actor would enjoy in a similar dispute. In other words, if you fail to pay a debt to another citizen or non-governmental entity, it's usually handled much, much differently than failing to pay a debt to the government. That double standard definitely doesn't feel right to many folks, and I think that's a very reasonable point to make.