6 ms·

I know this might rile a few people up, but I think voting is coercive. Personally, I don't see myself ever participating in a vote unless I know everyone invol

• enomar 18y ago
  You pay taxes though, right?
  • scudco 18y ago
    Out of fear of being murdered, yes. Honestly, this may sound like an exaggeration to prove a point, but I honestly pay taxes to save myself from certain death. But I am glad you asked because I am interested in not paying federal taxes next year. Instead of simply keeping the money for myself, however, I want to calculate what the federal government would like to rob from my wages and giving it away to charity. If you're interested in doing something like this with me let me know.
    • enomar 18y ago
      Murdered? Certain death? Maybe you know something I don't, but I don't think they impose the death penalty for not paying taxes. In any case, paying taxes and not voting seems to be an ineffective strategy. What's your end game?
      • scudco 18y ago
        I would like to live in peace with my neighbors. The only justifiable way to achieve this goal is through non-violent noncompliance against the coercive state. Also the post I linked to in my first comment explains why any illegitimate power must resort to murder to assert its power over others.
        • jdavid 18y ago
          @scudco, you are trying to explain freedom to a domesticated person that has never experienced freedom. i feel like i am explaining the same arguments over and over to people that believe the must be mastered or complete chaos will ensue. i think all libertarians feel this way talking to people. for me, freedom is a dream worth dieing for. I just have not figured out what will lead to freedom.
          • krschultz 18y ago
            Expect as a libertarian too, you guys are the ones who sink our chances to ever enact any meaningful progress. There is no society that has ever existed without some form of taxation. If you want no taxes, than you want no government. Then you are anarchists, not libertarians. I have no problem with that, but don't lump us in with you. Small government is a lot different than no government.
            • dougp 18y ago
              Cayman Islands GDP per capita is the 12th highest in the world. And has no direct taxation on individuals or companies. The Caymanians enjoy one of the highest outputs per capita and one of the highest standards of living in the world. From CIA world fact book.
              • Brushfire 18y ago
                This is sort-of correct. There are taxes on real-estate changes, corporate taxes, and import taxes. Real estate and import taxes are the two that could be considered 'direct' taxes. Paying 7.5% or 10% of the value of your home at sale time is DEFINITELY a direct tax, its just highly delayed. This tax is based on the idea that most valuable property in the caymans is not owned by locals or is owned by very wealthy people. But everyone pays it... Corporate taxes are indirect, but if you arent living off your own personal wealth, you are paying for those taxes through the products you buy from those companies or the lower wages you receive from those companies if you work there. Aside from all of that -- it is foolish to assume that this would work in other countries that are not very small, exotic, and dependent (at least in some part) upon tourism/foreigners. In some sense, you could say that the taxes are paid by foreigners more than locals. Thats all fine and good for Caymans, but again, that would never work in the US, Europe, etc where populations are large compared to the number of visitors/foreigners. Find me a country with a population of 50 Million that does anything like this, and I'll move there. :)
    • andreyf 18y ago
      If you stop paying taxes, will you also stop using public roads, public transport, FDA-tested food and drugs, airplanes flown by ex-airforce pilots, internet protocols developed by DARPA, etc, etc? Or do you want to just leech off the things other people's taxes pay?
      • scudco 18y ago
        Do I have a choice? Aren't all(if not most) of the things you've mentioned government-controlled monopolies? More to the point, though, I want these services, but I think it is wrong to take money from people to finance these services. If you and I both agree that roads, food and drug testing, transportation, etc. are worth paying for then let us get together and pay for them ourselves. However, we ought not take money from people who don't want these services simply because we do. Voting specifically obscures this moral dilemma because it is rule of a majority over the minority. Democracy _seems_ good, but it can only serve to justify theft, as it does today. If 51% of people agree that stealing from Tom and Dick to benefit Harry is okay then magically it is okay? Take care of the means and the end will take care of itself. Don't steal or aggress against your neighbor either individually or en masse. Be peaceful.
        • krschultz 18y ago
          The good news is that in America it is not the tyranny of the majority over the minority. When you look at the population distribution vs the electoral college vote distribution the minority of Americans in this country, it quickly becomes apparent that the rural minority has more power than the (sub)urban majority. This largely correlates to conservatives winning 7 out of the last 10 Presidential elections, so truly, it is the minority telling the majority what to do. The founding fathers greatly understood the problem you are pointing to - and put many safe guards in place. Many of those have been eroded, but not all. And to characterize taxes as stealing is utterly ridiculous. If you don't pay taxes should the police not protect your house? Are you saying that taxes should be volunteering? Maybe you should brush up on economics, but it is clear that there are somethings government has to do. Why would I volunteer to pay for the roads or the schools or the military if I don't have to and someone else will? And no person could really avoid using the services of the government.
    • deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
    • breily 18y ago
      I think I'm as libertarian as anybody, but I fail to see a connection between not paying taxes and being murdered by the government. Obviously there are consequences to not paying taxes, but those would be fines/jail time, not certain death. Could you explain a little more?
      • scudco 18y ago
        Fines or jail time are merely the better alternative once one has decided to non-comply. If one nonviolently non-complies with the state's demands to pay taxes they will likely fine her. If she refuses to pay the fine they will likely come knocking with armed men. If she further refuses the authority of the armed men to arrest her then the only recourse that the state has is to perform an act of aggression against her. It is true that they might drag her to jail--subduing her, a non-violent person, in the process. This is hardly what I would call humane. Anyways now she is in jail and still believes the state to have no authority over her. What recourse does she have to get out without capitulating to the state's authority over her? If she attempts escape she will be severely punished or killed. It is easier for her to fall in line and listen to the state than disobey simply because the consequences of choosing alternatives are much, much worse. Her death could actually happen a variety of ways but I only wanted to go off the example you mentioned. If you need further clarification I mention this topic and how it relates to voting here http://is.gd/3WIh http://is.gd/3WIh I don't want to go to jail. What is the alternative to spending years in jail? Paying 30% of my income? It is better than prison, but we ought to call this act of aggression what it really is--theft. Tax is simply a euphemism for theft, in my mind. And not to derail the topic you mentioned, but I would ask you to consider what good taxes have ever done besides making powerful people more powerful and financing wars where we justify the killing of innocents for some elusive greater good. Thanks for your question.
        • krschultz 18y ago
          Roads, airports, the internet, at a minimum, not to mention many other technologies. Taxes bought the rest of this country after the initial settlement. Taxes save thousands of people who otherwise would not be able to pay for medical care. Although if you want to save 30% on taxes, and let thousands of innocent people who do not have as much money as you die at the doors of a hospital they can't afford - you can definitely keep the righteous tone you have going without one hint of irony. Taxes are a necessary evil, the only question is to what extend we should tax ourselves.
• sd 18y ago
  If you think the American government is coercive, then imagine what would transpire in its absence. Regardless, voting reduces the coercive power of the state by affording citizens the right to change government.
• dejb 18y ago
  You wouldn't like Australia then. Voting is compulsory. You would risk a $20 fine (or having to come up with a good excuse) if you don't vote. Orwellian maybe, but they do have sausage sizzles and cake stalls which most people seem to like.
  • tjmc 18y ago
    My mother once wrote to them "I think compulsory democracy is a contradiction in terms" Clever, but they still fined her.
    • lutorm 18y ago
      As they should have. ;-) Democracy is not the right to do as one pleases, it's a way of running society. As such it's perfectly reasonable for a democratic society to decide that the privilege of citizenship comes with responsibilities, one of which being the requirement to vote. It's no different from deciding that stealing is illegal, if the populace disagrees they can make it an election issue and push the "non-compulsory voting" issue.
      • Brushfire 18y ago
        Thats all fine and good -- but what if you dislike all of the choices? In other words, you are saying I should be forced by the government to spend time out of my day to go somewhere to complete a write-in vote for people who likely wont win? Alternatively, if you read reports -- some district ALWAYS go a certain direction (liberal/conservative/etc). So if you are a liberal in a district that has gone conservative for 80+ years... whats the point I think this is counterproductive. If people don't want to have their voice heard, then they should not be forced. Those who are willing/able/eager to vote, shall, and those who arent, have no excuse to bitch about the results. My point is not that the above are always sound arguments for an individual to not vote, but that we should never be forced to do anything by our government. If I want to sit at home and not be part of the system, well thats my fucking right. And that right is paramount, in my opinion, to any 'right' society claims that I should be involved in it. What can I say, I'm a libertarian.
• tlrobinson 18y ago
  By remaining in your country and paying taxes you've bought into the "system" that most of us accept as a pretty good one. You're free to emigrate somewhere else if you don't like it. I don't see anything "coercive" about that.
  • scudco 18y ago
    What if I chose to remain and not pay taxes. Am I then free to live peacefully and not be a part of the state? Essentially, what happens when I peacefully non-comply?
    • krschultz 18y ago
      No because you are a leach off the state. Did you go to public school here? Have you ever been to a hospital? Driven on a road? Used our power grid? Used the internet? Of course you have, so "living peacefully" in the country is about as OK as some guy I don't know "living peacefully" in my basement. Sure, he isn't hurting me, but that doesn't mean he isn't a thief. And while you try to call taxes theft, the idea that you would not pay taxes but still enjoy the services the government gives (no matter how hard you try, you can not escape present or past use), is definitely theft. The fact that you try to make yourself sound innocent by ensuring you won't kill anyone doing THEIR job is laughable. Is it ok to rob a bank as long as you do it peacefully?
      • scudco 18y ago
        Am I leeching off the state or is the state leeching off its citizens? I did not go to public school, but the state still told my school what they must teach to be considered legitimate. I have been to a hospital. I have driven on a road in a car, on a motorcycle, on a moped, on a bicycle and I have even walked on roads. I am using the PG&E power grid as I type this. And, of course, I am using the internet to respond to your post. I replied to this kind of thinking in another post in this comment thread, but I do not have a choice in the matter as to whose roads I use if I wish to go from place to another because they are monopolized by government. I would like it if the government did not have monopoly control over things, but I do not deny that they have control. It may be of some consolation to you that I pay and have paid taxes in the past. The government, in my mind, is simply "a gang of thieves writ large" as Murray Rothbard once said. They provide services but they can only do so by monopolizing the service they provide and _taking_ other peoples money to finance the administration of that service. If you can rob a bank peacefully I would very much like to see that for the sake of argument.
• lutorm 18y ago
  That link makes no sense to me. Not that I'm saying this particular system we are talking about is perfect, far from it, but what's the alternative? How would you like society to make decisions? After all, any society must necessarily make decisions affecting those who do not have a say, like infants and people yet to be born. Surely it's better if as many as possible of those affected have a say? (Personally, I'd like the entire world to have a vote in the US election because of its far-reaching effects, but I don't think that delegitimizes the system... entirely. ;-) If you feel oppressed by the US democratic system, you could always apply for asylum in a country that you think better runs according to your values...
  • scudco 18y ago
    What if I want to simply secede from the government entirely? To your final point, though, I find this talk of emigration strange. Many people ask me this question and I concede that it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility for me. However, am I not petitioning for the same thing a voting population is? The difference I see is that I do not want to affect change through the apparatus of the state because I find it illegitimate. Instead I will try to affect change through non-violent means. I'll speak with you and try to convince you that non-violence is the way toward a peaceful and sustainable society. I will not use the barrel of a gun personally or by proxy(the police) to tell you or anyone else what to do. I will not get together with my friends to vote on what you must and mustn't do. Be peaceful.
    • krschultz 18y ago
      Great in theory, but you can't secede from the effects of government. Lets say that you built a farm and where completely self sustaining. You never went out for anything, never put your waste onto the populace's sewer system. You never went out for healthcare, or drove on the public's roads, or used any technology funded by the government. What about the education you received at the tax payers expense? What about the past medical care you got as a child that you will never repay. Your theory is so irrational as to be impossible.
      • 18y ago
• krakensden 18y ago
  You seem confused. The purpose of government is to have a stable group of muggers who behave themselves, not to make you guilt-free. /You/ can never legitimize or de-legitimize the state, only its citizens in aggregate can. Which is why voting is so handy, you get to de-legitimize a state without all that nasty killing. I don't understand grand visions of a world built entirely of nice people. Someone will always figure out that they can be top dog by being 10% more asshole than everyone else, and then you're back to the start- building a society around coercion and limiting assholes and useful shortcuts to revolution. Public schools may not be the best, but you may have missed some important life lessons by skipping out.
• olavk 18y ago
  For better or worse, US have a lot of coercive power around the world, and your choice of president can make a big difference for a lot of people who have no say in the election. So as a non-american I tell you that it is your goddam duty to get informed and vote. You may not like to vote, but you have to. It's like watching a car crash about to happen and you have the ability to prevent it - sure it infringes on your personal freedom to mind you own business, but it's your duty to do something anyway.
  • jobeirne 18y ago
    As an American, it is my right to be able to choose not to vote.
    • olavk 18y ago
      OK, I suppose it's probably for the best if you don't vote.
      • jobeirne 18y ago
        Oh trust me, I did. But it sure as hell wasn't for your sake.