Subnostr

The first amendment is a foundational right, so if that’s removed, democracy is a sham. It would be the trappings of democracy without an actual one.

Taxation is a tough one. I would rather the government light my money on fire than use it the way they do now, but in a fiat system, they don’t really need to tax you except as a means of control. I think involuntary taxation as it’s currently administered is a scourge, but that would be so in any form of government.

mark tyler 2y ago

Yeah, mandatory taxation in a system that doesn’t ask for your consent (and has no interest in doing so) is pretty bad. It doesn’t feel pressing if you have no moral qualms with how it’s being spent, which works out because most people think of government systems like the US as inherently virtuous rather than maybe a distasteful utilitarian necessity (trolley problem).

Interesting idea that fiat governments don’t need to tax. It’d be cool if someone somewhere could try a country that doesn’t. They’d have maybe a permanent, 30% inflation rate? Experimenting like this or with a voluntary system is too hard 😭

To your first point: assuming the implementing government actually functions well (this assumption of course is the issue), would you prefer the current system over losing freedom of speech and gaining freedom from involuntary tax?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Chris Liss 2y ago

Think maybe that experiment would fail because the fiat-ness would be too out in the open, i.e., it would be too obvious that the govt was printing willy-nilly, and inflation might be even higher than that. I said they only do it for control, but they might also do it to perpetuate the illusion that the money is real and comes from the taxpayer.

I would not trade freedom of speech for freedom from invoiuntarily tax because soon you would have neither (if no one could object to future encroachments.)