5 ms·

The necessity bit, or the not being compulsory bit? No snark intended; I'm unsure whether you're an anarchist asking for a defence of the State, or a Statist a

The necessity bit, or the not being compulsory bit? No snark intended; I'm unsure whether you're an anarchist asking for a defence of the State, or a Statist asking for a defence of voluntary taxation :)

orf 9y ago
How about you just try and reconcile both contradictory points as best you can. I bet it will be some ideological Libertarian fantasy, but please do have a go.
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  I imagine it'd be the same as every other vital service that's paid for voluntarily. Food, water, medicine, transport... none of which I think are figments of an elaborate Libertarian fantasy ;) Perhaps you could explain why you believe the provision of Government services is an exception that requires compulsion?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
danmaz74 9y ago
Not the OP, but I would be curious to know what "voluntary taxation" would mean - looks like an oxymoron to me.
richmarr 9y ago
> ...or a Statist asking for a defence of voluntary taxation Calling the vast majority of people "statist" seems to imply a (false) equivalence between voluntary and compulsorary taxation as competing theories. Voluntary taxation is a fringe theory with some fairly serious flaws... the primary one in my opinion being that it erodes democracy by pushing even more influence over government into the hands of people with deep enough pockets to pay more (but only when they're happy). The incentives in that kind of system would be all wrong. By all means have a go at defending voluntary taxation, I'd be interested to hear your opinion.
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  > Voluntary taxation is a fringe theory with some fairly serious flaws... the primary one in my opinion being that it erodes democracy by pushing even more influence over government into the hands of people with deep enough pockets to pay more (but only when they're happy). The incentives in that kind of system would be all wrong. It's a side issue to the one we're discussing, but ... that's what we have right now, and the incentives are in fact all wrong. > By all means have a go at defending voluntary taxation, I'd be interested to hear your opinion. So, roughly: 1) It's morally wrong to initiate force. Compelling someone to pay for something is as wrong when performed by the Government with a majority mandate, as it is when performed by a mugger. 2) Many other vital services are already paid for voluntarily, by those who benefit from them, and provided for those who can't afford them through private charity. There's nothing special or unique about Government services as opposed to, say, medicine or food. 3) Core Government services are actually pretty cheap - we worked out around NZ$2,500 / adult / year in NZ back in 2000 or so. I hope the vast majority of people would stump up that kind of cash in the absence of any other taxation. If not, I suspect that society is broken in ways that can't be fixed by compulsory taxation, either. Rothbard goes into a bit more detail ;) here: https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market/html/pp/1402 https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-ma...
  - arethuza 9y ago
    So how would you go about acquiring evidence that this approach actually works?
    - duncan_bayne 9y ago
      Meta-question: do you believe that ethical decisions in politics must only proceed once someone can point to that decisions having been made in the past? That it is insufficient to point to the _wrong_ inherent to compulsion and say "let's stop this?". Would you make the same argument to abolitionists prior to the Civil War? Leaving the issue of evidence aside, I'd generalise from the countless vital goods and services that are produced and paid for by voluntary interaction. I'd reason that since those systems work pretty well, it's reasonable to assume that Government would as well. Then I'd spend many years heavily involved in Libertarian politics, trying to convince others to abandon the use of force against each other, only to quit in disgust when I realised that it was a waste of my time and effort, and that Tiberius' criticism of his Senate ("men fit to be slaves") rings as true today.
Angostura 9y ago
If it is a necessity (I think it is), it's not clear to me how it can not be compulsory. If it's not compulsory it is charitable giving, not taxation.
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  > If it is a necessity (I think it is), it's not clear to me how it can not be compulsory. But you wouldn't make that claim of any _other_ vital service, would you? Food, water, transport, medicine ... all these and more are provided by voluntary payment - or by charity for those who can't afford it. What's special about Government that it requires compulsion to fund?
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    All those things are funded for at least some subset of the population, and heavily subsidised for the rest, by the Government. Also, I think it's pretty obvious that "voluntary payment" for healthcare didn't work for many, many people, and has resulted in thousands of deaths and significant needless pain and suffering every year.
  - Angostura 9y ago
    In that case you are arguing that taxation isn't necessary.

orf 9y ago

How about you just try and reconcile both contradictory points as best you can. I bet it will be some ideological Libertarian fantasy, but please do have a go.

duncan_bayne 9y ago
I imagine it'd be the same as every other vital service that's paid for voluntarily. Food, water, medicine, transport... none of which I think are figments of an elaborate Libertarian fantasy ;) Perhaps you could explain why you believe the provision of Government services is an exception that requires compulsion?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

danmaz74 9y ago

Not the OP, but I would be curious to know what "voluntary taxation" would mean - looks like an oxymoron to me.

richmarr 9y ago

> ...or a Statist asking for a defence of voluntary taxation Calling the vast majority of people "statist" seems to imply a (false) equivalence between voluntary and compulsorary taxation as competing theories. Voluntary taxation is a fringe theory with some fairly serious flaws... the primary one in my opinion being that it erodes democracy by pushing even more influence over government into the hands of people with deep enough pockets to pay more (but only when they're happy). The incentives in that kind of system would be all wrong. By all means have a go at defending voluntary taxation, I'd be interested to hear your opinion.

duncan_bayne 9y ago
> Voluntary taxation is a fringe theory with some fairly serious flaws... the primary one in my opinion being that it erodes democracy by pushing even more influence over government into the hands of people with deep enough pockets to pay more (but only when they're happy). The incentives in that kind of system would be all wrong. It's a side issue to the one we're discussing, but ... that's what we have right now, and the incentives are in fact all wrong. > By all means have a go at defending voluntary taxation, I'd be interested to hear your opinion. So, roughly: 1) It's morally wrong to initiate force. Compelling someone to pay for something is as wrong when performed by the Government with a majority mandate, as it is when performed by a mugger. 2) Many other vital services are already paid for voluntarily, by those who benefit from them, and provided for those who can't afford them through private charity. There's nothing special or unique about Government services as opposed to, say, medicine or food. 3) Core Government services are actually pretty cheap - we worked out around NZ$2,500 / adult / year in NZ back in 2000 or so. I hope the vast majority of people would stump up that kind of cash in the absence of any other taxation. If not, I suspect that society is broken in ways that can't be fixed by compulsory taxation, either. Rothbard goes into a bit more detail ;) here: https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market/html/pp/1402 https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-ma...
- arethuza 9y ago
  So how would you go about acquiring evidence that this approach actually works?
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    Meta-question: do you believe that ethical decisions in politics must only proceed once someone can point to that decisions having been made in the past? That it is insufficient to point to the _wrong_ inherent to compulsion and say "let's stop this?". Would you make the same argument to abolitionists prior to the Civil War? Leaving the issue of evidence aside, I'd generalise from the countless vital goods and services that are produced and paid for by voluntary interaction. I'd reason that since those systems work pretty well, it's reasonable to assume that Government would as well. Then I'd spend many years heavily involved in Libertarian politics, trying to convince others to abandon the use of force against each other, only to quit in disgust when I realised that it was a waste of my time and effort, and that Tiberius' criticism of his Senate ("men fit to be slaves") rings as true today.

Angostura 9y ago

If it is a necessity (I think it is), it's not clear to me how it can not be compulsory. If it's not compulsory it is charitable giving, not taxation.

duncan_bayne 9y ago
> If it is a necessity (I think it is), it's not clear to me how it can not be compulsory. But you wouldn't make that claim of any _other_ vital service, would you? Food, water, transport, medicine ... all these and more are provided by voluntary payment - or by charity for those who can't afford it. What's special about Government that it requires compulsion to fund?
- vertex-four 9y ago
  All those things are funded for at least some subset of the population, and heavily subsidised for the rest, by the Government. Also, I think it's pretty obvious that "voluntary payment" for healthcare didn't work for many, many people, and has resulted in thousands of deaths and significant needless pain and suffering every year.
- Angostura 9y ago
  In that case you are arguing that taxation isn't necessary.