Not sure I agree that taxes are theft. As long as the tax is reasonable, then it's not theft. Why do you think it is?
Discussion
Taxes involve coercion. So by proxy any coercive action that forces you to do any act you otherwise would not do is immoral. Taxes are backed by the threat of forcing you in a cage (or worse death) if you do not comply with said tax. You do not get to protest, you don't get to vote on it, you don't even have a say. It's just "the way things have always been" so everyone just goes along with it.
If a thief steals from you, your own money, you'd call it theft every single time. But for someone reason a mythical thing called "government " comes and takes your money under that same threat as the robber/ thief its all of a sudden not robbery?
What makes the 2 different is when the thief gets what he wants he will normally dissappear and never be seen by you again. Government on the other hand takes your money buys things "for you" that you didnt want, tells you it's for your own good, then continues to follow you around to do this act for your entire life ensuring you is in your best interest to allow them to keep doing it.
We do get to vote though. One issue is that governments know how to bribe people: print money, give away money, people feel temporarily wealthier, vote government back in. Taxation could be an efficient way for a group of people who share similar goals/values to fund (at an economy of scale) services. Fix the money, fix the politics.
Voting is a farce. Always has been. No amount of voting makes a difference in the end. As whomeever you vote for is functioning from funds that are stolen (taxes) so therefore they face 0 consequences for any choice they make while in office.
For sure, there are issues. I'm just not sure the alternative (no voting) would be better.
It would be infinitely better than now. If voting got us into the mess we're in now. Imagine if instead of people worrying about the next political pundits attempting to swindle themselves into office for another few years. That time was actually spent doing PRODUCTIVE things. Like inventing new things, creating art, music, podcasts.
Voting is AN EXTRACTIVE process. Its give legitimacy to a system in which wealth (private property) is taken from one group to be given to another whomever which got the most votes this season. If you believe people are dumb and ignorant and need leaders to be lead. How is it that you can choose that leader out of those same dumb and ignorant people and expect them not to be fallible in anyway?
How do you incentivise productive behaviour? And by whose definition? One person's productive behaviour may seem like a waste of time for others. The incentives for politicians are wrong, thanks to fiat. Remove fiat, improve transparency and democracy is 100% more effective. Not perfect, but better than authoritarianism.
You can either produce things people want & trade value for value, or you can extract value from others by force.
If it's not voluntary trade then it's some sort of theft.
People in govt operate via an inverted morality where they only advance their careers by finding ways to extract more from people, not by producing more value.
And when some people print for free what others have to work for, that's just slavery.
Taxes are not the problem. Politicoans are.
Taxes are fair :you want police, roads and commerce law? Pay for it
You don't want to pay for it? Then stop using them. And the only way to stop using them is to leave the country. No one has the time to micro manage who want which services to pick of they should be taxed or not, so everyone has to pay them
The problem is when politicians come and just raise taxes, and the only thing that changes is the number on their bank account
Police response time is atrocious, they care more about writing tickets to generate revenue than actually protecting people, they can shoot your dog, & they arrest people for "resisting arrest." When you can't refuse to fund an organization, that is exactly the sort of "service" you get.
Taxation IS the problem.
How would you do the things taxes do?
Voluntary funding the way we do everything else. Mutual aid societies (which were killed by govt policy). Insurance cooperatives (also completely distorted by govt). I don't see any reason why we couldn't have voluntary police stations work the same as voluntary fire departments work, my local voluntary fire department works just fine. And having more people on call to provide security with some sort of uber/ride share like coordination should be a fairly easy thing to figure out given all the network tech available today.
Road building & repair could be crowd funded or could still be paid for largely by some amount added to the price of gas if people are willing to pay it. People already buy all sorts of products that contribute a % to different causes. Businesses will often build roads that serve their needs & if they can do so & capture good will from the community in the process they will. In any case, it will all be far cheaper without govt inflation & an army of bureaucrats to pay in the process.
home developers would pay for the roads to the homes
businesses would pay for the roads to the businesses
probably there would be some toll roads between cities, but probably people would mostly build water/ rail/ air
the anti-car people could finally get the world they want if roads aren't subsidized and development is not choked by zoning
Hey Man, yer messing with the police unions and their pensions!!!!
Voluntary funding does not work, and honestly the same people that argue against taxes would turn around and say "I will only pay for the street in front of my hose". And the problem will begin again.
1), just getting the budget for things is work. How would you pay for the proposal and the organization to do it? You can't just say " it should be included in the price" because then with a few assholes in the neighborhood that don't want to put any money, not only you don't get the street, but no one want to make a new proposal.
2) if you fund the streets for your neighborhood but no one funds the ones between it and your work, then it still sucks
3) this approaches leaves poor parts of the city even worse off as now the can't get any repairs done because they don't have the money for it. Poverty CANNOT be a feedback loop where being poor makes you poorer
No. FORCED FUNDING does not work. It always leads to never ending wars, tyranny, & hyperinflation which is where we are now.
Your fear of free riders ignores that 50+% of the country is currently employed by govt either directly or via subsidies & govt contracts, which makes them ALL free riders. They get paid with money stolen from others, so whatever "taxes" come out of their tax funded income is just symbolic, they are all parasites.
People not contributing to infrastructure while supporting themselves in productive ways is a far smaller problem than 50+% of people living as active monetary leeches.
The govt actively works to keep people poor & dependent because it benefits them to have a lower class they can withdraw ebt & other payments from in order to make them riot & scare the middle class into compliance. See the riots of 2020 as evidence.
The cities where the poor are worst off are the cities controlled by the most pro govt leftwing politicians.
Hmm, my thoughts are that Societies don’t work for the reasons you both highlight. One path leads to debt, inflation, corruption and violence to maintain it. The other leads to underfunded programs that are not payed for with free riders And violence as individuals take advantage of the gap and lack of resources to provide enforcers so strong men willing to perform violence take over. You are both trying to have your cake and eat it too, you are trying to find a way to have the society we currently have when the scale of the society is the root of the problem. The problems that exist in our society are caused by the idea of what a “society” is. Once you get beyond Dunbars number, ethical human societies don’t scale. Because humans cease to see each other as fellow humans with common interests of protection and profit working together for a common cause of survival. Humans then find and militate on differences between themselves. Because a natural law of humans are that we are supposed to be in small groups. Free riders exist because of the scale of society. State violence and corruption exists because of the scale of society. Crime exists because of the scale of society. No one will be willing to give up what they see as the perks of a society (labor specialization, combined resources) so for as long as human nature reflects these non scaling properties, the very attempt of a large number of humans, will generate all the problems inherent in the society you are trying to solve.
Justo to clarify something: I am 100% some taxes. I think the power that control taxes take advantage of it. They are immortal. It's not taxes fault. Its greed
Taxation IS greed.
It is literally the desire to extract money by force, justified by the arrogant belief that your chosen cause is "too important" to leave others free to choose. There is nothing more arrogant & greedy than believing you know better & can force others to serve your ends. It is people who think exactly like YOU who are the problem. Your argument demonstrates that you're the greedy control freak who wants to treat others like children.
You might believe it's security that is too important, others believe it's climate change or healthcare. You are all operating under the same belief that your values trump the property rights & freedom of everyone else.
this has been a very odd exchange
Ah yes, if only it was the good&noble people that would threaten us with violence to steal the products of our labor, then it would be fine.
How, after I typed a whole reply on free riders, do you repeat the same BS like my reply doesn't exist? Can you not read?
And the root of the word "society" is "social." The divide between social & anti-social interation is voluntary consent vs threats, coercion & violence. There is no such thing as taxation without threats, coercion & violence. Taxation is the perfect measure of our failure to create a society. The exact measure of how much we are dominated by criminals.
I read what you said on free riders. Here why I wasn’t convinced by it.
“People not contributing to infrastructure while supporting themselves in productive ways is a far smaller problem than 50+% of people living as active monetary leeches.” I think your +50% are leeches claim is a bit dubious (you include everyone that receives a subsidy or is employed directly by the state, but there is no reason to believe a purely voluntary system of funding the government would result in that hypothetical government from having the same or similar subsidies, employment, and contractor relationships as they do now. It would only be in your choice to fund those or not) but that’s not my main beef . You aren’t claiming there is no free rider problem, only that you think it’s less of a problem than the “leeches”. I make the claim the magnitude of the free rider problem is large enough that a society of people far exceeding Dunbars number will fail to protect itself from “strong men” from using sufficient violence in their oppresive systems to subdue a purely voluntary system. That’s it. I agree with you that taxation is theft. I agree with you that it is therefore an immoral system. But it doesn’t follow necessarily that a moral system will be able to protect itself. Free riders do exist, and they always will, it’s human nature to take the free when you can get away with it. That’s why the market is filled with products you have to pay for, inorder to take possession of them. If that wasn’t an aspect of human nature then you would be able to go to any grocery store and walk out with stuff and “pay whatever you wanted” What would you expect to happen? Well I would expect that those stores would go out of business. And if a store can’t stay in business on a purely voluntary “pay what ever you would like” system then I don’t think a government would be able to either. The counter claim I would expect would be a private entity that you can pay for protection like a private military. But then you’ve basically just described the *feudal system*. And I would expect outcomes would be similar. And we are back to “strong men” using violence to subdue a purely voluntary system. I’m not happy about the result. Regardless I believe when a society far outstrips dunbars number it fails to be both moral and sustainable. (In the sense that it protects itself to continue)
A society based on coercion WITHOUT consent at the root is a society of abusers. The fiat madness is possible because both the so called elites and the average Joe's do not respect the boundaries of other humans.
Voluntary interaction doesn't mean irresponsible and unaccountable.
BUT: it means everybody has the right to withdraw consent.
Not paying taxes in a war and exploitation driven society is the most legitimate thing to do.
Quick reply here. I've sent another reply to this message of yours. But I don't remember having read it... Did you edit it? This reply at least semms better thought that others I've seen ( but I still disagree) so its a shame I gave that response. I'm short on time now. I'll reply in detail later
Only edit was like an extra word or something in a sentence.
I respect that you’re at least insightful enough about to ask this question. But It’s remarkable the lack of imagination you have if you’re just willing to accept the premise that the only way to fund community goods is by threatening to throw people in a cage
Its not lack of imagination. If I want to argue with you I have to know what you think.
If your entire posture is "taxes are bad" then you are off to a bad start.
Do you believe that taxes pay for government expenditures?
They 100% pay for expenditures. They also pay for the government corruption. Of taxes didn't pay the expenditures that wouldmeans that the politicians do, and we all know they would never do that
They actually don’t because most governments spend way beyond their means and run deficits and print money to make up the difference
I don’t think it’s reasonable for a bunch people I don’t know to run up a credit card in my name for an unknown but usually obscene and exorbitant amount without my consent or knowledge.
When you hire a general contractor do you agree on a price or is it just whatever it takes however long it takes however much it costs? That’s a ridiculous way to do business even if you respect government legitimacy (I don’t )