4 ms·

I think you have the morality exactly inverted here. It's their money, and ought to be theirs to do with as they please. Those who would force them to spend i

I think you have the morality exactly inverted here. It's their money, and ought to be theirs to do with as they please. Those who would force them to spend it on something else are the people employing coercion. It's they who are in the wrong, morally.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
By that logic, all taxation is inherently morally wrong. I think that should be enough to tell you that your view is unlikely to be correct. You say the government employs coercion? You are correct; it does. For the greatest part, though, it employs it on those who, in the absence of the government, would themselves use coercion on those weaker than themselves. If you're not the strongest, you want a government to protect you from those stronger than yourself. If we want a government at all, someone has to pay for it. (If you don't want a government at all, see the previous paragraph. Or see the horrible examples of places that, right now, don't have one.) Do you want a government paid for entirely by voluntary contributions? Good luck with getting enough money that way. But the free rider problem not only starves the government of enough resources to function correctly, it also leads to citizens who are disengaged because they have no skin in the game. Short of those unworkable extremes, what you probably really want is a much smaller government (like the one laid out in the Constitution, perhaps). It may not be funding government that bugs you; it may be funding that elephant of a government. If that's your position, I'm with you. If there's going to be taxation, then, let it be fairly applied. Let there be much fewer loopholes, so that arguments about what the government should fund can be out in the open, in the budget process, rather than arguments about the mind-numbingly complex details of the tax code.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  By that logic, all taxation is inherently morally wrong. Compulsory taxation, yes. I think that should be enough to tell you that your view is unlikely to be correct. I think the word you're looking for is 'unpopular' ;) It seems we're largely agreed on the proper purpose of Government - to protect citizens from each other, that is, to protect their rights. But don't you see it as wrong for the Government to violate those very rights in order to fund itself? Do you want a government paid for entirely by voluntary contributions? Good luck with getting enough money that way. Actually, funding a Government isn't that expensive. If you pare Government back to core functions, you don't need much money. In New Zealand, we (meaning the Libertarianz) estimated it at around $2,500 / working adult / year. That (back at the turn of the 21st century) would get you courts, police, Parliament, defense, embassies and the glue to run it all. Then you need a way of raising the money. Probably, most working people can afford $2,500 per year to keep civilisation running, especially if they're not paying any other taxes. Maybe a poll tax? Seems reasonable that those paying also do the voting. Could simply solicit donations, or maybe run a lottery. But no: you couldn't run a socialist country that way. Which is sort of the point :)
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    > Probably, most working people can afford $2,500 per year to keep civilisation running, especially if they're not paying any other taxes. Sure. But how many of those who can afford it will send it in voluntarily? I seem to be more cynical than you; my answer is "not enough".
    - duncan_bayne 11y ago
      Thanks for the discussion. I can only assume the downvotes were from people who disagreed with my argument, and chose to express their disagreement that way. I'm seeing so much of that lately that it's starting to put me off HN.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

By that logic, all taxation is inherently morally wrong. I think that should be enough to tell you that your view is unlikely to be correct. You say the government employs coercion? You are correct; it does. For the greatest part, though, it employs it on those who, in the absence of the government, would themselves use coercion on those weaker than themselves. If you're not the strongest, you want a government to protect you from those stronger than yourself. If we want a government at all, someone has to pay for it. (If you don't want a government at all, see the previous paragraph. Or see the horrible examples of places that, right now, don't have one.) Do you want a government paid for entirely by voluntary contributions? Good luck with getting enough money that way. But the free rider problem not only starves the government of enough resources to function correctly, it also leads to citizens who are disengaged because they have no skin in the game. Short of those unworkable extremes, what you probably really want is a much smaller government (like the one laid out in the Constitution, perhaps). It may not be funding government that bugs you; it may be funding that elephant of a government. If that's your position, I'm with you. If there's going to be taxation, then, let it be fairly applied. Let there be much fewer loopholes, so that arguments about what the government should fund can be out in the open, in the budget process, rather than arguments about the mind-numbingly complex details of the tax code.

duncan_bayne 11y ago
By that logic, all taxation is inherently morally wrong. Compulsory taxation, yes. I think that should be enough to tell you that your view is unlikely to be correct. I think the word you're looking for is 'unpopular' ;) It seems we're largely agreed on the proper purpose of Government - to protect citizens from each other, that is, to protect their rights. But don't you see it as wrong for the Government to violate those very rights in order to fund itself? Do you want a government paid for entirely by voluntary contributions? Good luck with getting enough money that way. Actually, funding a Government isn't that expensive. If you pare Government back to core functions, you don't need much money. In New Zealand, we (meaning the Libertarianz) estimated it at around $2,500 / working adult / year. That (back at the turn of the 21st century) would get you courts, police, Parliament, defense, embassies and the glue to run it all. Then you need a way of raising the money. Probably, most working people can afford $2,500 per year to keep civilisation running, especially if they're not paying any other taxes. Maybe a poll tax? Seems reasonable that those paying also do the voting. Could simply solicit donations, or maybe run a lottery. But no: you couldn't run a socialist country that way. Which is sort of the point :)
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > Probably, most working people can afford $2,500 per year to keep civilisation running, especially if they're not paying any other taxes. Sure. But how many of those who can afford it will send it in voluntarily? I seem to be more cynical than you; my answer is "not enough".
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    Thanks for the discussion. I can only assume the downvotes were from people who disagreed with my argument, and chose to express their disagreement that way. I'm seeing so much of that lately that it's starting to put me off HN.