3 ms·
> if property rights were a good idea, you wouldn't need fences, locks, laws, police And indeed, only in crime-ridden communities you actually need to lock you
by snitko 12y ago
> if property rights were a good idea, you wouldn't need fences, locks, laws, police
And indeed, only in crime-ridden communities you actually need to lock your doors and fence things. And who made most of the things illegal that produced those crime-ridden communities? You guessed it, the state. Besides, which places are usually most secure and locked and fenced? Again, it's state property, not private property.
> They're created through legal process with the consent of the population
Population is a very abstract collectivist term. First of all, even if the majority thinks something is a good idea it by no means should lead to other people being forced to comply. If 90% decided to shoot the rest of the 10% in the head, would you still argue it's okay to do so? Second, saying that force is required so that the rebellious minority complied is inaccurate: if you remove that threat of force, I guarantee you (and I believe that after careful consideration, you would agree with me), the majority would stop paying. Therefore, the threat of force is the major factor, not just some minor necessity.
> requiring unanimity will get you nowhere in terms of having a functioning society. Some decisions are hard but necessary.
That is a statement, not an argument. Why do you believe that only through taxation a functioning society is possible? Why is it a necessary thing? Why do we need unanimity and why can't people spend their money each as they please? I guess, a great way to try and at least think of an alternative solution would be imagine a world where having any kind of state is practically impossible (say, anyone who proclaims itself a government employee dies of a violent diarrhea on the spot) and try to think of ways a society would organize itself. I believe if you try to do it, it might lead you to some very awesome conclusions.
- majormajor 12y agoI don't follow your first or third paragraphs, but I feel like the second is most germane to the question of "is taxation moral," so I'll focus on that. Here's my question to propose, instead of following the reduction to absurdity of voting to shoot people, but sticking with the majority/minority question you raise. If the majority of people in any unit of democratic government (city, state, province, whatever) truly believes that that said government should not collect* taxes, how do those taxes exist? One of the more recent examples I can think of is in Arlington, TX, where taxes were raised to contribute towards a new football stadium[0]. There's research on the books suggesting that such moves don't pay off financially for cities in the long run, as well as disputes about campaign funding[1], but somehow I imagine a truly moral issue like shooting people in the head would be a harder election to swing than one about a question of utility—pay some money, get a stadium, and all the non-financial benefits many people get from that. *which I will also note is a quite different stance from 'will jump to pay them without any grumbling, reminders, or future coercion' [0] http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=1914997 http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=1914997 [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-05/in-stadium-building-spree-u-s-taxpayers-lose-4-billion.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-05/in-stadium-building...
- snitko 12y agoI think your question is a very smart one. Indeed, if most opposed taxation, wouldn't they simply vote against it? The problem is, it's kind of a vicious cycle. Because state cannot exist without taxation, it is in its best interest to never bring up this question: that is, it may be okay to occasionally reduce one particular tax, but overall, the idea that taxation is extortion would simply never be raised. Therefore, much like in medieval times, people are raised to believe that they cannot survive without state (god) and that society would descend into violent anarchy without a state (people would lose their moral compass without faith in god). Another problem is how state redefines things when it comes to taxing people. Taxes are always tied to good activities you perform, not bad activities states perform. That is, if people had to fill tax reports in which they saw "$200 for killing a bunch of kids in Iraq" instead of "$200 for selling your car" they might change their minds. So, to sum it up: threat of force + propaganda from the young age (done in schools on that very same taxpayers money) = vicious cycle that is hard to break.