3 ms·

> Personally, I'd much prefer to live in society, and contribute part of my efforts towards sustaining it. A lot of people are stingy and don't want to contrib

> Personally, I'd much prefer to live in society, and contribute part of my efforts towards sustaining it. A lot of people are stingy and don't want to contribute unless they're getting the bargain. If someone else is getting the better end of the stick, they view this as a loss, and it makes them miserable. Essentially, they view taxation and society as a zero sum game, rather than a positive sum game. I think political polarization and extremism is making this a more and more common view. I can't pay any taxes if $1 is used even indirectly for abortions, to fund wars, etc Society is complex and can't really be reduced like this, but a growing number of people think it can be.

ryandrake 3y ago
Yea I think we all know That Guy like you describe: I have an acquaintance who is pretty far down this same rabbit hole. Anti-government, anti-taxes, he has actually gone and spoke at some kind of Public Comments thinggy at the county to complain that he should get an itemized tax bill that shows who each dollar is going to, so he can pick and choose and not let a single dollar of "his money" go to someone he thinks doesn't deserve it. Obviously not a big believer in "society" or "community".
- listenallyall 3y ago
  Fed up with crazy government spending = "not a big believer in society or community"? Have you actually thought this through? Government spending, especially without oversight, is an extremely inefficient method for "building community". The vast majority of taxes go to enormous, bureaucratic departments or programs with virtually no connection to individual people within one's local sphere. Donating to, and actively participating in, church, schools, parks, community centers, etc is typically a lot more effective in strengthening a community, and one can easily be anti-taxes and very much pro-community.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Churches by and large are institutionalized mental illness. Do not recommend. And while local institutions can be more responsive and flexible, they also cannot exist without a larger entity helping maintain their sovereignty. (Otherwise larger and stronger forces would overthrow them.) Local only can also be a hassle for things like commerce or civil rights. Imagine every city having their own currency or rules about what "kind of people" are welcome or unwelcome.
    - listenallyall 3y ago
      Of course local & regional groups and establishments can be flawed, you are correct that most are, some greatly so. However the OP's point was that someone who is anti-tax (or just wants some accountability and transparency) is "obviously" both anti-community and anti-society. I'm simply saying that being deeply invested in one's community via direct participation in, and/or contributing to, any of a number of local outlets and groups, is not incompatible with frustration regarding the lack of control over the use of one's tax payments.
      - paulryanrogers 3y ago
        Good points. Thanks for clarifying.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
>Essentially, they view taxation and society as a zero sum game, rather than a positive sum game I think this is the crux of it. I think it all comes down to the counterfactual used in comparison. One group of people say look, this is all positive sum because without society, you would be living in a mud hut, so be gratefully for everything you get to keep beyond that. The other group of people say look, I contribute far more to this society than I get back. Sure, I'm better off than if I lived in mud hut, but worse off than if I lived in a society with less involuntary obligation.

ryandrake 3y ago

Yea I think we all know That Guy like you describe: I have an acquaintance who is pretty far down this same rabbit hole. Anti-government, anti-taxes, he has actually gone and spoke at some kind of Public Comments thinggy at the county to complain that he should get an itemized tax bill that shows who each dollar is going to, so he can pick and choose and not let a single dollar of "his money" go to someone he thinks doesn't deserve it. Obviously not a big believer in "society" or "community".

listenallyall 3y ago
Fed up with crazy government spending = "not a big believer in society or community"? Have you actually thought this through? Government spending, especially without oversight, is an extremely inefficient method for "building community". The vast majority of taxes go to enormous, bureaucratic departments or programs with virtually no connection to individual people within one's local sphere. Donating to, and actively participating in, church, schools, parks, community centers, etc is typically a lot more effective in strengthening a community, and one can easily be anti-taxes and very much pro-community.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Churches by and large are institutionalized mental illness. Do not recommend. And while local institutions can be more responsive and flexible, they also cannot exist without a larger entity helping maintain their sovereignty. (Otherwise larger and stronger forces would overthrow them.) Local only can also be a hassle for things like commerce or civil rights. Imagine every city having their own currency or rules about what "kind of people" are welcome or unwelcome.
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    Of course local & regional groups and establishments can be flawed, you are correct that most are, some greatly so. However the OP's point was that someone who is anti-tax (or just wants some accountability and transparency) is "obviously" both anti-community and anti-society. I'm simply saying that being deeply invested in one's community via direct participation in, and/or contributing to, any of a number of local outlets and groups, is not incompatible with frustration regarding the lack of control over the use of one's tax payments.
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      Good points. Thanks for clarifying.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

>Essentially, they view taxation and society as a zero sum game, rather than a positive sum game I think this is the crux of it. I think it all comes down to the counterfactual used in comparison. One group of people say look, this is all positive sum because without society, you would be living in a mud hut, so be gratefully for everything you get to keep beyond that. The other group of people say look, I contribute far more to this society than I get back. Sure, I'm better off than if I lived in mud hut, but worse off than if I lived in a society with less involuntary obligation.