4 ms·

"and give you piece of mind that what you own is yours and no one is going to take it by force" except for the government that takes stuff by force eg by collec

by kukx 6y ago

"and give you piece of mind that what you own is yours and no one is going to take it by force" except for the government that takes stuff by force eg by collecting taxes etc.

didibus 6y ago
That's one solution to not have people take it by force. You agree to a taxation scheme, which trickles down, yet you still retain most of it yourself, and it satisfies everyone. You know exactly how much to give, and you can achieve the right balance of just enough to keep everyone content. So its way better to willingly agree to participate in a tax scheme, than being at risk of beheading from masses or poison in your drink. There are other schemes, but it's always the same idea, you need to keep people happy enough and satisfied so they don't come for your stuff. That way, you can enjoy it in peace. Edit: Well assuming a liberal democratic taxation system. Otherwise taxes can be a way to take even more from people at the bottom, like in feudalism, where land owners tax their labourers for the right to use their land.
- kortilla 6y ago
  > So its way better to willingly agree to participate in a tax scheme, than being at risk of beheading from masses or poison in your drink. Is it really willingly agreeing when there is no option to opt-out?
  - NeutronStar 6y ago
    Do you drive on the road? Do you purchases food in a store? Do you use electricity? All of those things are supported by taxation at some point.
  - 6AA4FD 6y ago
    This is more of a hypothetical scenario used to describe the origins of a modern capitalist state, rather than any present scenario. However there have certainly been people in history who have been able to make decisions about what laws they want to be subject to. Political lobbying, international migration, and bribery to the purposes of selective enforcement are all methods people have used to this date in the US. If you're interested in a more theoretical (and less bourgeoisie oriented) discussion of the tensions between a social contract justification for punishment and our practical inability to leave the state, I would recommend "Legal Obligation and the Duty of Fair Play" as well as "A Theory of Justice", both by John Rawls, as well as "The Principle of Fair Play" by A. John Simmons. You may know the second as a standard component of any introductory political philosophy curriculum, and the first and third were parts of a philosophy of law class I took, taken from a textbook by Frederick Schauer. They are quite interesting. The conclusion I have come to is that we are morally bound by the laws of a state in proportion to the degree that they benefit us in comparison to other possible bodies of law. This approximates our willingness to agree to a given scheme of rules if we were presented with free migration between all possible states, and the extent to which we would prefer the state we are actually in, we should be considered to have willingly agreed to their laws even if that did not happen in reality.
  - bartvk 6y ago
    But there often are forms of opt-out, such as becoming a business owner (mild), or moving country (drastic).
  - XorNot 6y ago
    People always say "why can't I opt out?" but the reason they say it because they want to opt out while not moving country, or really changing anything about their lives, they just want to not pay taxes right where they are. As though taxes, government and broader social organization has nothing at all to do with why the roads are paved and there's a municipal sewer system. Or why it seems like it's so hard to find a body of land on Earth where you aren't subject to another, possibly much worse government (military is funded by someone...) If moving somewhere you wouldn't have to pay taxes always seems like it would be too hard, maybe think on that.
ncallaway 6y ago
Yea, exactly. You've drastically reduced the scope of who takes your stuff by force. You codify how much they are allowed to take, and even build schemes where you can ideally have input into that amount.
oblio 6y ago
Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr.#1900s https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr.#1900...

by kukx 6y ago

"and give you piece of mind that what you own is yours and no one is going to take it by force" except for the government that takes stuff by force eg by collecting taxes etc.

didibus 6y ago

That's one solution to not have people take it by force. You agree to a taxation scheme, which trickles down, yet you still retain most of it yourself, and it satisfies everyone. You know exactly how much to give, and you can achieve the right balance of just enough to keep everyone content. So its way better to willingly agree to participate in a tax scheme, than being at risk of beheading from masses or poison in your drink. There are other schemes, but it's always the same idea, you need to keep people happy enough and satisfied so they don't come for your stuff. That way, you can enjoy it in peace. Edit: Well assuming a liberal democratic taxation system. Otherwise taxes can be a way to take even more from people at the bottom, like in feudalism, where land owners tax their labourers for the right to use their land.

kortilla 6y ago
> So its way better to willingly agree to participate in a tax scheme, than being at risk of beheading from masses or poison in your drink. Is it really willingly agreeing when there is no option to opt-out?
- NeutronStar 6y ago
  Do you drive on the road? Do you purchases food in a store? Do you use electricity? All of those things are supported by taxation at some point.
- 6AA4FD 6y ago
  This is more of a hypothetical scenario used to describe the origins of a modern capitalist state, rather than any present scenario. However there have certainly been people in history who have been able to make decisions about what laws they want to be subject to. Political lobbying, international migration, and bribery to the purposes of selective enforcement are all methods people have used to this date in the US. If you're interested in a more theoretical (and less bourgeoisie oriented) discussion of the tensions between a social contract justification for punishment and our practical inability to leave the state, I would recommend "Legal Obligation and the Duty of Fair Play" as well as "A Theory of Justice", both by John Rawls, as well as "The Principle of Fair Play" by A. John Simmons. You may know the second as a standard component of any introductory political philosophy curriculum, and the first and third were parts of a philosophy of law class I took, taken from a textbook by Frederick Schauer. They are quite interesting. The conclusion I have come to is that we are morally bound by the laws of a state in proportion to the degree that they benefit us in comparison to other possible bodies of law. This approximates our willingness to agree to a given scheme of rules if we were presented with free migration between all possible states, and the extent to which we would prefer the state we are actually in, we should be considered to have willingly agreed to their laws even if that did not happen in reality.
- bartvk 6y ago
  But there often are forms of opt-out, such as becoming a business owner (mild), or moving country (drastic).
- XorNot 6y ago
  People always say "why can't I opt out?" but the reason they say it because they want to opt out while not moving country, or really changing anything about their lives, they just want to not pay taxes right where they are. As though taxes, government and broader social organization has nothing at all to do with why the roads are paved and there's a municipal sewer system. Or why it seems like it's so hard to find a body of land on Earth where you aren't subject to another, possibly much worse government (military is funded by someone...) If moving somewhere you wouldn't have to pay taxes always seems like it would be too hard, maybe think on that.

ncallaway 6y ago

Yea, exactly. You've drastically reduced the scope of who takes your stuff by force. You codify how much they are allowed to take, and even build schemes where you can ideally have input into that amount.

oblio 6y ago

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr.#1900s https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr.#1900...