4 ms·

>This presumes that most, if not all of the money gained by the rich is justly earned. I would take serious issue with this. Case by case, you may or may not h

by noarchy 12y ago

>This presumes that most, if not all of the money gained by the rich is justly earned. I would take serious issue with this. Case by case, you may or may not have a point. Is the alternative to have the state take the money and spend as it wishes? In such a case, is the money "justly earned" if it was taken by force?

crdoconnor 12y ago
It's a mistake to think that states 'spend' your taxes. They don't really. It helps to think of states as machines that print money which they spend at one end and run an incinerator into which they put all of your taxes at the other. The clear implication of this is that: * Spending is inflationary * Taxes are there to clamp down on inflation. * Taxes are there to change behavior in a socially conscious way (e.g. tax cigarettes to reduce smoking // tax breaks for wind farms). Your cash is debt. It is not something you own like a house. It is a social relationship subject to intermediation by the government under democratic oversight.
lmm 12y ago
Everything bottoms out at force; most of us consider taxation as just or more so than the way the rich acquire their money. The state is a bit more legitimate than rich individuals because it's more accountable to the people.
- noarchy 12y ago
  >The state is a bit more legitimate than rich individuals because it's more accountable to the people. That isn't necessarily a universally-accepted idea. Democratic systems have the machinery of accountability, but some of us are not completely convinced that it works; surely not as-advertised. I know that some will regard the wealth of the rich as having been acquired by some means of trickery or even coercion. And that may even be true in some cases. But it is true of taxation nearly 100% of the time, as states must use the threat of force to acquire that money.
  - lmm 12y ago
    Nowhere near 100%. Most people pay their taxes not because they're rationally responding to threat of force but because they think it's the right thing to do.
    - noarchy 12y ago
      >Nowhere near 100%. Most people pay their taxes not because they're rationally responding to threat of force but because they think it's the right thing to do. As a thought experiment, imagine that taxation became completely voluntary tomorrow. What percentage of its former revenue does the government make? Suddenly, the government has to compete with other entities for money. Government doesn't know the competition game, so how well would it fare? It would be an interesting experiment, though it would undoubtedly cause some short-term chaos.
      - lmm 12y ago
        The experiment's already been done. No-one descended from the heavens and imposed our current governmental system; what we have now is what people did. If you remove the government, people band together into organizations that behave the same way: first you get something like a union where people pay dues and get certain benefits, their decision making structure evolves, and eventually the organization decides to cover everyone and force everyone to contribute. (It's been quite amusing to watch this happening in miniature in eve online) Of course it's possible to set arbitrary rules under which a government doesn't form, or corporations provide something better, but those rules end up being very arbitrary.
        noarchy 12y ago
        >The experiment's already been done. I'd love to hear about it. >No-one descended from the heavens and imposed our current governmental system; what we have now is what people did. "What people did", isn't what you or I did, necessarily. Are you making the classic HN error of assuming that every reader lives in your country (usually the US)? Or do you think that every government is legitimate, no matter what, so long as it is not overthrown? >If you remove the government, people band together into organizations that behave the same way: first you get something like a union where people pay dues and get certain benefits, their decision making structure evolves, and eventually the organization decides to cover everyone and force everyone to contribute. (It's been quite amusing to watch this happening in miniature in eve online) Eve Online is not a great example, imo, for a few reasons. First the corporation tax is built into the game's mechanics. It is assumed that this is must be how all corporations will work. But that's less of an issue than.. Two, corporation membership is indeed voluntary. It is exceptionally easy to leave a corp (minus a potential 24 hour stasis). Even if you're deep in nullsec, you can get out. If you die trying, no big deal. This is nothing like living in a modern state, where even leaving said state can be subject to prohibitive border controls. And getting shot by an agent of the state doesn't exactly follow by you ending up in a station where your clone was located. The involuntary nature of the state and the very real consequences of what it does immediately separates it from something akin to an Eve corp. >Of course it's possible to set arbitrary rules under which a government doesn't form, or corporations provide something better, but those rules end up being very arbitrary. I don't think there's any doubt that if a government suddenly didn't exist, or could no longer pay its bills that we'd see alternative institutions take up the slack in certain areas. But it isn't necessarily a state entity that would do so, and this is clearly a main point of disagreement here.
- johnm111888 12y ago
  i don't understand where all this demonizing the rich rhetoric comes from. "or more so than the way the rich aquire their money." What? Did they steal their money? Or were they participating in a volunteer economy comprised of mutually beneficial exchanges (i.e. capitalism)? Maybe you live in China or Russia and that's where my misunderstanding comes from.

by noarchy 12y ago

crdoconnor 12y ago

It's a mistake to think that states 'spend' your taxes. They don't really. It helps to think of states as machines that print money which they spend at one end and run an incinerator into which they put all of your taxes at the other. The clear implication of this is that: * Spending is inflationary * Taxes are there to clamp down on inflation. * Taxes are there to change behavior in a socially conscious way (e.g. tax cigarettes to reduce smoking // tax breaks for wind farms). Your cash is debt. It is not something you own like a house. It is a social relationship subject to intermediation by the government under democratic oversight.

lmm 12y ago

Everything bottoms out at force; most of us consider taxation as just or more so than the way the rich acquire their money. The state is a bit more legitimate than rich individuals because it's more accountable to the people.

noarchy 12y ago
>The state is a bit more legitimate than rich individuals because it's more accountable to the people. That isn't necessarily a universally-accepted idea. Democratic systems have the machinery of accountability, but some of us are not completely convinced that it works; surely not as-advertised. I know that some will regard the wealth of the rich as having been acquired by some means of trickery or even coercion. And that may even be true in some cases. But it is true of taxation nearly 100% of the time, as states must use the threat of force to acquire that money.
- lmm 12y ago
  Nowhere near 100%. Most people pay their taxes not because they're rationally responding to threat of force but because they think it's the right thing to do.
  - noarchy 12y ago
    >Nowhere near 100%. Most people pay their taxes not because they're rationally responding to threat of force but because they think it's the right thing to do. As a thought experiment, imagine that taxation became completely voluntary tomorrow. What percentage of its former revenue does the government make? Suddenly, the government has to compete with other entities for money. Government doesn't know the competition game, so how well would it fare? It would be an interesting experiment, though it would undoubtedly cause some short-term chaos.
    - lmm 12y ago
      The experiment's already been done. No-one descended from the heavens and imposed our current governmental system; what we have now is what people did. If you remove the government, people band together into organizations that behave the same way: first you get something like a union where people pay dues and get certain benefits, their decision making structure evolves, and eventually the organization decides to cover everyone and force everyone to contribute. (It's been quite amusing to watch this happening in miniature in eve online) Of course it's possible to set arbitrary rules under which a government doesn't form, or corporations provide something better, but those rules end up being very arbitrary.
      - noarchy 12y ago
        >The experiment's already been done. I'd love to hear about it. >No-one descended from the heavens and imposed our current governmental system; what we have now is what people did. "What people did", isn't what you or I did, necessarily. Are you making the classic HN error of assuming that every reader lives in your country (usually the US)? Or do you think that every government is legitimate, no matter what, so long as it is not overthrown? >If you remove the government, people band together into organizations that behave the same way: first you get something like a union where people pay dues and get certain benefits, their decision making structure evolves, and eventually the organization decides to cover everyone and force everyone to contribute. (It's been quite amusing to watch this happening in miniature in eve online) Eve Online is not a great example, imo, for a few reasons. First the corporation tax is built into the game's mechanics. It is assumed that this is must be how all corporations will work. But that's less of an issue than.. Two, corporation membership is indeed voluntary. It is exceptionally easy to leave a corp (minus a potential 24 hour stasis). Even if you're deep in nullsec, you can get out. If you die trying, no big deal. This is nothing like living in a modern state, where even leaving said state can be subject to prohibitive border controls. And getting shot by an agent of the state doesn't exactly follow by you ending up in a station where your clone was located. The involuntary nature of the state and the very real consequences of what it does immediately separates it from something akin to an Eve corp. >Of course it's possible to set arbitrary rules under which a government doesn't form, or corporations provide something better, but those rules end up being very arbitrary. I don't think there's any doubt that if a government suddenly didn't exist, or could no longer pay its bills that we'd see alternative institutions take up the slack in certain areas. But it isn't necessarily a state entity that would do so, and this is clearly a main point of disagreement here.
johnm111888 12y ago
i don't understand where all this demonizing the rich rhetoric comes from. "or more so than the way the rich aquire their money." What? Did they steal their money? Or were they participating in a volunteer economy comprised of mutually beneficial exchanges (i.e. capitalism)? Maybe you live in China or Russia and that's where my misunderstanding comes from.