5 ms·

taxes are involuntary confiscated from people hence they are evil I disagree. In a Democracy, taxes are part of the social contract that we as citizens have w

taxes are involuntary confiscated from people hence they are evil I disagree. In a Democracy, taxes are part of the social contract that we as citizens have with the government and fellow citizens of the country where we hold our citizenship. We submit to a level of taxation that is agreed upon by our representatives in government. We have also agreed upon as a nation that people should be uniformly subjected to some taxation. We generally agree that receiving all the government's goods and services and not paying taxes is illegal. It's only extreme forms of this type of behavior that is generally punishable by imprisonment. We receive goods and services that the publicly elected government decides to provide. You drive on roads that are paid for by taxes. You receive protection from crime, recovery in times of disaster, and you interact with corporations whose dealings are regulated by our taxes. You use pieces of paper that has pictures of former statesmen printed on them to trade for other goods and services. Commerce would not be possible without that government backed paper. We would be reduced to barter without it. The value of that paper is guaranteed by the government and the taxes that we pay. If you are unhappy with the level of services that your taxation is providing, you are free to live in a different country, where as an expatriate, the first $80,000 of your income is not subject to income tax, because you receive less services from your government. You're also entitled to vote for representatives that align more carefully with your values. That right to vote is supported by the taxes you pay. Call that system evil if you will. I think it actually works pretty well.

Dilpil 17y ago
Sounds alot like the contract a mafia don has with local business owners. He keeps the neighborhood orderly, so you don't have to deal with thugs. He keeps everyone respectful. Business isn't possible without respect. If you are unhappy with the don's policies, you can sell your house, leave your job and family behind, and flee.
- iamelgringo 17y ago
  You also have the option to vote, or participate in the political process if you're that unhappy with it.
  - cousin_it 17y ago
    I see two problems with the option to vote. First, the American presidential election averages the opinions of 200M people to obtain 1 bit of information. Selecting a president from the population requires about 28 bits. Where do the other 27 come from? Second, in a presidential election each voter exercises a miniscule amount of power/influence over their own life - about one-200millionth - and a lot of similar tiny increments of influence over everybody else, all adding up to 1. But why should each voter have 200M times more business meddling in the lives of everyone else than governing themselves? The setup is ripe with perverse incentives. Both effects get starker as a democracy grows in size.
    - iamelgringo 17y ago
      You're right. The right to vote in a presidential election does seem rather paltry. But, just because you don't choose to participate more in the political process and have more influence doesn't mean that you are unable to participate. That is a very big distinction that a lot of people have shed blood over in the past three hundred years. But, as paltry as the vote may seem, you get the benefits of a reasonably transparent, efficient and honest government system. And, the last 9 months aside, you are able to participate in one of the largest, most vibrant economies in the world at one of the (comparatively) lowest levels of taxation in the industrialized world.
dantheman 17y ago
The social contract theory of democracy was I believe appropriately dispelled in Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. This theory may have held up while there was still the frontier, but since there isn't available land for people who opt to settle it is really quite a weak argument. We are forced by law to accept these pieces "green and gray ink" to settle all debts regardless of what the debt is really in -- you cannot make contracts in gold, and expect them to be enforced. Commerce is most definitely possible without that paper, in fact in California in the early 1900s you were blackballed if you used Dollars instead of gold. "In California, as in other states, the paper was legal tender and was receivable for public dues; nor was there any distrust or hostility toward the federal government. But there was a strong feeling ... in favor of gold and against paper ... Every debtor had the legal right to pay off his debts in depreciated paper. But if he did so, he was a marked man (the creditor was likely to post him publicly in the newspapers) and he was virtually boycotted. Throughout this period paper was not used in California. The people of the state conducted their transactions in gold, while all the rest of the United States used convertible paper." [ref1] I am unhappy with the level of services and taxes, but instead of leaving I hope to change and improve it. Just because someone disagrees doesn't mean they are forced to leave. ref1: Frank W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, 2nd Ed. (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1916) I, 312. Also see J.K. Upton, Money in Politics, 2nd Ed. (Boston: Lothrop Publishing Company, 1895) pp. 69 ff.
- iamelgringo 17y ago
  The social contract theory of democracy was I believe appropriately dispelled in Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. I'm sure if you have libertarian, minimalist government leanings, then Nozick's work dispelled the social contract theory of democracy quite nicely. I don't find citing an unknown authority to "disprove" my arguments very helpful. It's a corollary argument to "proof by grad student". I'm certainly not interested in arguing the benefits of alternate currencies, gold standards or fiat money here. I'm simply pointing out that we all recieve a lot of benifits from the taxes you pay, despite your unhappiness with the system. And, I wasn't suggesting that you leave the country, I was pointing out that if you are unhappy with the system, you have options. Another option, is that you are free to participate in our tax supported democracy to change it by voting of participating politically. Either way, you're not going to be forced to do either of those options at gunpoint. You do have that freedom. I grew up in Central America in the 80's. The term "being forced to do something at gunpoint" has different connotations for me than it must for you. We'll have to agree to disagree.
mseebach 17y ago
> taxes are part of the social contract The word "contract" conveys an idea of some sort of fixed agreement, that can be recinded if one party doesn't fulfull it's obligations. Problem is, you're pretty much obligated to enter into the contract in order to get education and work, and if you don't fullfill your part, the government recinds it by putting you in jail. The other way around? What are even the governments obligations? If you're not satified with the police not doing enough to fight crime in your neighborhood, or fighting the "wrong" (in your opinion) kinds of crime? Not happy with wars, schools or bailouts? You get to move. That's pretty much it. Yeah, you also get to participate in the democratic process, but that's not the kind of influence you normally connect with contracts.
- viggity 17y ago
  You can always move. Obviously it usually is a lot tougher move out of country (because of the social aspect). But I know all kinds of people who left high tax states New York and California for low tax states like Florida, Texas and Arizona. But if it gets bad enough the rich will move the Caribbean. As I understand it, that is what a lot of very wealthy French people have done.
  - mseebach 17y ago
    Yeah, absolutely. I'm looking to leave Denmark, not because I'm wealthy (I'm not), but because I'm sick and tired of politicians telling me I'm hysterically greedy because I think 50% tax is a bit steep on a perfectly average income (even quite low considering my age and education). It's just the characterization of the deal as a contract I'm opposing. Any civil contract just vaguely like the citizen/government "contract" would result in criminal investigation pretty much anywhere in the world.
philwelch 17y ago
So how do I opt out of the "social contract", unsubscribe from 911 and the postal service, and give up any protection I get from the police? Oh. I have to move to another country and accept their social contract, instead. I have to go out of my way and leave the land I was born in and the continent that my ancestors lived in for centuries before these governments were even established, and refusing to do so means I have "accepted" a social contract whose terms can change outside my control and against my most spirited resistance. I can accept an argument that voluntary human interaction does not scale well enough. I can accept an argument that we need institutional violence to keep a continent-wide civilization in order. I can accept an argument that the benefits of civilization outweigh the costs of this institutional violence. But don't pretend this state of affairs is voluntary. We are born into a system, raised knowing no other way for humans to live, made to recite pledges of allegiance in the classroom before we know the language well enough to understand what we are saying, and as adults, expected to obey arbitrary rules with no realistic recourse of change. And we are expected to believe that we freely chose the shape of the society we live in. Yes, you can vote. You can even assert your constitutional rights and try to convince five judges, rather than fifty million voters. But even then, the voters might vote to amend the constitution to take your rights away. So in reality you're always at the mercy of authority--be it the authority of the courts or the authority of the mob. When, exactly, in the Indian Wars did the tribes accept their social contract? Does the fact that your ancestors lost a war really constitute consent to the rule of the victorious government just because that government has conquered and subdivided your homeland? I'm well aware that blood has been shed to secure what little choice we have under this government. Blood has also been shed to force an entire race, under gunpoint, to live under this government against their will. And blood was also shed to take two steps forward and one step back--no more slavery, but on the other hand, if your entire state votes to opt out of the federal government, it gets burnt to the ground by General Sherman. There is no social contract. No one freely chose to live under government, though many of us do accept the status quo, and many more simply resign themselves to the belief that there is no alternative. We do have a society that seems to work acceptably, and that may outweigh the cost. Government seems necessary for civilization, and civilization is a wonderful thing. But voluntary? No, sir, it is not. (Edited)
- anigbrowl 17y ago

Dilpil 17y ago

Sounds alot like the contract a mafia don has with local business owners. He keeps the neighborhood orderly, so you don't have to deal with thugs. He keeps everyone respectful. Business isn't possible without respect. If you are unhappy with the don's policies, you can sell your house, leave your job and family behind, and flee.

iamelgringo 17y ago
You also have the option to vote, or participate in the political process if you're that unhappy with it.
- cousin_it 17y ago
  I see two problems with the option to vote. First, the American presidential election averages the opinions of 200M people to obtain 1 bit of information. Selecting a president from the population requires about 28 bits. Where do the other 27 come from? Second, in a presidential election each voter exercises a miniscule amount of power/influence over their own life - about one-200millionth - and a lot of similar tiny increments of influence over everybody else, all adding up to 1. But why should each voter have 200M times more business meddling in the lives of everyone else than governing themselves? The setup is ripe with perverse incentives. Both effects get starker as a democracy grows in size.
  - iamelgringo 17y ago
    You're right. The right to vote in a presidential election does seem rather paltry. But, just because you don't choose to participate more in the political process and have more influence doesn't mean that you are unable to participate. That is a very big distinction that a lot of people have shed blood over in the past three hundred years. But, as paltry as the vote may seem, you get the benefits of a reasonably transparent, efficient and honest government system. And, the last 9 months aside, you are able to participate in one of the largest, most vibrant economies in the world at one of the (comparatively) lowest levels of taxation in the industrialized world.

dantheman 17y ago

The social contract theory of democracy was I believe appropriately dispelled in Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. This theory may have held up while there was still the frontier, but since there isn't available land for people who opt to settle it is really quite a weak argument. We are forced by law to accept these pieces "green and gray ink" to settle all debts regardless of what the debt is really in -- you cannot make contracts in gold, and expect them to be enforced. Commerce is most definitely possible without that paper, in fact in California in the early 1900s you were blackballed if you used Dollars instead of gold. "In California, as in other states, the paper was legal tender and was receivable for public dues; nor was there any distrust or hostility toward the federal government. But there was a strong feeling ... in favor of gold and against paper ... Every debtor had the legal right to pay off his debts in depreciated paper. But if he did so, he was a marked man (the creditor was likely to post him publicly in the newspapers) and he was virtually boycotted. Throughout this period paper was not used in California. The people of the state conducted their transactions in gold, while all the rest of the United States used convertible paper." [ref1] I am unhappy with the level of services and taxes, but instead of leaving I hope to change and improve it. Just because someone disagrees doesn't mean they are forced to leave. ref1: Frank W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, 2nd Ed. (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1916) I, 312. Also see J.K. Upton, Money in Politics, 2nd Ed. (Boston: Lothrop Publishing Company, 1895) pp. 69 ff.

iamelgringo 17y ago
The social contract theory of democracy was I believe appropriately dispelled in Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. I'm sure if you have libertarian, minimalist government leanings, then Nozick's work dispelled the social contract theory of democracy quite nicely. I don't find citing an unknown authority to "disprove" my arguments very helpful. It's a corollary argument to "proof by grad student". I'm certainly not interested in arguing the benefits of alternate currencies, gold standards or fiat money here. I'm simply pointing out that we all recieve a lot of benifits from the taxes you pay, despite your unhappiness with the system. And, I wasn't suggesting that you leave the country, I was pointing out that if you are unhappy with the system, you have options. Another option, is that you are free to participate in our tax supported democracy to change it by voting of participating politically. Either way, you're not going to be forced to do either of those options at gunpoint. You do have that freedom. I grew up in Central America in the 80's. The term "being forced to do something at gunpoint" has different connotations for me than it must for you. We'll have to agree to disagree.

mseebach 17y ago

> taxes are part of the social contract The word "contract" conveys an idea of some sort of fixed agreement, that can be recinded if one party doesn't fulfull it's obligations. Problem is, you're pretty much obligated to enter into the contract in order to get education and work, and if you don't fullfill your part, the government recinds it by putting you in jail. The other way around? What are even the governments obligations? If you're not satified with the police not doing enough to fight crime in your neighborhood, or fighting the "wrong" (in your opinion) kinds of crime? Not happy with wars, schools or bailouts? You get to move. That's pretty much it. Yeah, you also get to participate in the democratic process, but that's not the kind of influence you normally connect with contracts.

viggity 17y ago
You can always move. Obviously it usually is a lot tougher move out of country (because of the social aspect). But I know all kinds of people who left high tax states New York and California for low tax states like Florida, Texas and Arizona. But if it gets bad enough the rich will move the Caribbean. As I understand it, that is what a lot of very wealthy French people have done.
- mseebach 17y ago
  Yeah, absolutely. I'm looking to leave Denmark, not because I'm wealthy (I'm not), but because I'm sick and tired of politicians telling me I'm hysterically greedy because I think 50% tax is a bit steep on a perfectly average income (even quite low considering my age and education). It's just the characterization of the deal as a contract I'm opposing. Any civil contract just vaguely like the citizen/government "contract" would result in criminal investigation pretty much anywhere in the world.

philwelch 17y ago

So how do I opt out of the "social contract", unsubscribe from 911 and the postal service, and give up any protection I get from the police? Oh. I have to move to another country and accept their social contract, instead. I have to go out of my way and leave the land I was born in and the continent that my ancestors lived in for centuries before these governments were even established, and refusing to do so means I have "accepted" a social contract whose terms can change outside my control and against my most spirited resistance. I can accept an argument that voluntary human interaction does not scale well enough. I can accept an argument that we need institutional violence to keep a continent-wide civilization in order. I can accept an argument that the benefits of civilization outweigh the costs of this institutional violence. But don't pretend this state of affairs is voluntary. We are born into a system, raised knowing no other way for humans to live, made to recite pledges of allegiance in the classroom before we know the language well enough to understand what we are saying, and as adults, expected to obey arbitrary rules with no realistic recourse of change. And we are expected to believe that we freely chose the shape of the society we live in. Yes, you can vote. You can even assert your constitutional rights and try to convince five judges, rather than fifty million voters. But even then, the voters might vote to amend the constitution to take your rights away. So in reality you're always at the mercy of authority--be it the authority of the courts or the authority of the mob. When, exactly, in the Indian Wars did the tribes accept their social contract? Does the fact that your ancestors lost a war really constitute consent to the rule of the victorious government just because that government has conquered and subdivided your homeland? I'm well aware that blood has been shed to secure what little choice we have under this government. Blood has also been shed to force an entire race, under gunpoint, to live under this government against their will. And blood was also shed to take two steps forward and one step back--no more slavery, but on the other hand, if your entire state votes to opt out of the federal government, it gets burnt to the ground by General Sherman. There is no social contract. No one freely chose to live under government, though many of us do accept the status quo, and many more simply resign themselves to the belief that there is no alternative. We do have a society that seems to work acceptably, and that may outweigh the cost. Government seems necessary for civilization, and civilization is a wonderful thing. But voluntary? No, sir, it is not. (Edited)

anigbrowl 17y ago