3 ms·

Few people agree that taxation is the same as theft. You appear to be someone who does have this view. That is fine but it is not a commonly held belief and g

Few people agree that taxation is the same as theft. You appear to be someone who does have this view. That is fine but it is not a commonly held belief and generally is subject to derision and down voting. This should not come as a shock to you. A very large percentage of people believe that having a functioning government is necessary and taxation is a necessary component for this. There are no examples of large populations of humans (many millions for the definition of large) living well without government. There are lots of examples of the reverse being true. That is, finding places where large populations live quite well with a government. Correlation not implying causation and all that, one can reasonably conclude that a functioning government, and hence taxation, is a necessity for large populations to live well. There are lots of examples of functioning governments performing badly and subjecting large populations to miserable conditions. This means that people need to be vigilant with regard to the governance. It's good for people to question the decisions their governments make and people at the fringe can provide nice counter balances to group think and a herd mentality. Calling taxation theft might be a bit too extreme though. Overall I think your view of each individual funding themselves only what they feel deserves funding is highly impractical and ignores human nature. Specifically it ignores the free rider problem. It also ignores that such a method is highly inefficient. Government is much more efficient than the solution you posed in another post of yours. It is nice to fantasize about being like Daniel Boone and going it alone without need for government but in a nation of 350 million people that ability does not exist for any but a very few. The go it alone mentality does not scale well to large populations and have the net effect of making us all poorer.

ahallock 12y ago
Taxation might not fit the strict definition of theft (easy when the gov creates its own jargon), but it is the threat of force to take property from someone against their will. I mean, how many of us are giving money directly to the gov by our own volition? I don't know of anyone. We were born into this system and we never agreed to it. Let's at least be honest about that. > There are no examples of large populations of humans (many millions for the definition of large) living well without government. That there are no examples means nothing. Would you say if most of the world were enslaved that because there are no examples of a free people, it's not worth while to try? You end violent institutions because they are immoral.
- phaemon 12y ago
  > it is the threat of force to take property from someone against their will. No it's not. It's the threat of force against people who use that market and then refuse to pay the fees they owe. Any service can (and would) do the same via the legal system. I've never paid the US government a penny, because I don't use their market. > We were born into this system and we never agreed to it. You certainly have the option of leaving that market if you don't like its fees. Or of attempting to get them changed by voting for a representative that shares your views. > Would you say if most of the world were enslaved that because there are no examples of a free people, it's not worth while to try? If all the examples of 'free people' were actually living in much worse conditions than the so-called 'enslaved' ones, I'd certainly stop to question the definitions of 'enslaved' and 'free'.
  - ahallock 12y ago
    You're making a false equivalency between the State and other market actors. You may not be using the US government's services, but you're probably using your own government's. Forcing a service on people (say the War on Drugs) and then demanding payment through taxation is different from competing in the market. Even if you cite paying a fee for using the roads--not too controversial--to gain a monopoly on road-building, the government had to use the threat of force. You must follow things back to the origin. > You certainly have the option of leaving that market if you don't like its fees. For a price, and then only to enter another country.
    - phaemon 12y ago
      > You're making a false equivalency between the State and other market actors. This is a meaningless objection: no two things are exactly the same, but it can be useful to consider how they're similar. > You may not be using the US government's services, but you're probably using your own government's. Yes, and then I pay for them. > Forcing a service on people (say the War on Drugs) and then demanding payment through taxation is different from competing in the market. No it's not. Many companies take the money I paid for their service and use it in ways I don't like. I get far less say in their use of this money than I do in my country's government. (My government doesn't have a monopoly on road building - I had to pay for the road up to my house - so I don't know what that refers to) > You must follow things back to the origin. Not really. While it may be interesting to find out the origin of certain rules and customs, it makes little difference to the way they are now. > For a price, and then only to enter another country. True, nothing in life is free; that's why it's a good general rule that poor people shouldn't pay taxes. But there are countries without governments and there are unclaimed territories around the world - they're just not very nice places to live.

ahallock 12y ago

Taxation might not fit the strict definition of theft (easy when the gov creates its own jargon), but it is the threat of force to take property from someone against their will. I mean, how many of us are giving money directly to the gov by our own volition? I don't know of anyone. We were born into this system and we never agreed to it. Let's at least be honest about that. > There are no examples of large populations of humans (many millions for the definition of large) living well without government. That there are no examples means nothing. Would you say if most of the world were enslaved that because there are no examples of a free people, it's not worth while to try? You end violent institutions because they are immoral.

phaemon 12y ago
> it is the threat of force to take property from someone against their will. No it's not. It's the threat of force against people who use that market and then refuse to pay the fees they owe. Any service can (and would) do the same via the legal system. I've never paid the US government a penny, because I don't use their market. > We were born into this system and we never agreed to it. You certainly have the option of leaving that market if you don't like its fees. Or of attempting to get them changed by voting for a representative that shares your views. > Would you say if most of the world were enslaved that because there are no examples of a free people, it's not worth while to try? If all the examples of 'free people' were actually living in much worse conditions than the so-called 'enslaved' ones, I'd certainly stop to question the definitions of 'enslaved' and 'free'.
- ahallock 12y ago
  You're making a false equivalency between the State and other market actors. You may not be using the US government's services, but you're probably using your own government's. Forcing a service on people (say the War on Drugs) and then demanding payment through taxation is different from competing in the market. Even if you cite paying a fee for using the roads--not too controversial--to gain a monopoly on road-building, the government had to use the threat of force. You must follow things back to the origin. > You certainly have the option of leaving that market if you don't like its fees. For a price, and then only to enter another country.
  - phaemon 12y ago
    > You're making a false equivalency between the State and other market actors. This is a meaningless objection: no two things are exactly the same, but it can be useful to consider how they're similar. > You may not be using the US government's services, but you're probably using your own government's. Yes, and then I pay for them. > Forcing a service on people (say the War on Drugs) and then demanding payment through taxation is different from competing in the market. No it's not. Many companies take the money I paid for their service and use it in ways I don't like. I get far less say in their use of this money than I do in my country's government. (My government doesn't have a monopoly on road building - I had to pay for the road up to my house - so I don't know what that refers to) > You must follow things back to the origin. Not really. While it may be interesting to find out the origin of certain rules and customs, it makes little difference to the way they are now. > For a price, and then only to enter another country. True, nothing in life is free; that's why it's a good general rule that poor people shouldn't pay taxes. But there are countries without governments and there are unclaimed territories around the world - they're just not very nice places to live.