Bitcoin Forum

This is for all the statists out there...

The defining characteristic of a State is that it is funded by taxation. All governments, throughout time, have had this feature, regardless of other trappings, ideologies,or policies.

My challenge to you is simple: Defend that practice.

My contention is that taxation is theft. Taxation is the extortion, by violence or threat of violence, of the funding necessary to run the government. Refute that, if you can.

So taxation ISN'T extortion through threat of violence!? Wow, I didn't know that! I've been paying taxes all this time... I'll never fill out another tax return.

Thank you for offering debate.

I'd like to present a little evidence, in the form of definitions, as to the fact that taxes are indeed a form of extortion.

First: Tax (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tax)
Now, Extort (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extort)
Now, note: the word used in the "tax" definition is not "requested," not "desired," but "demanded." That reveals an interesting fact: Taxes are not voluntary.

Well, what happens when you say "no" to the tax man?

According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasion#Level_of_evasion_and_punishment):
"Tax evasion is a crime in almost all developed countries and subjects the guilty party to fines and/or imprisonment. "

Key words there: fines, and imprisonment.

A fine (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fine) is:
And of course imprisonment (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imprisonment) is:
So, if decide not to pay taxes, they will take more money, or throw you in a cage. But what if you say no to that?

Well, then they will make you. They will use force to make you comply. Hmm... where did I see that, before? Oh yes:

Well, even if the legal threat isn't needed, it's still there.

Allow me, if you will, to advance an alternative.

You agree that some services that government provides are necessary, and proper, yes?

I think all government functions could be distributed to a local level and there is no need for a bloated central government.

Especially these days where we have the internet to communicate instantly and tools to allow collaboration of people.

Those are the services I'm referring to, or at least some of them.

I'll bite.
Sure, the government does provide some services which are useful; I might even go so far as to say that a subset of those are "necessary."

Thanks. :)


You're making my case for me! ;)

I meant, specifically, that some services currently provided by government are necessary and useful. Some examples: Transportation infrastructure, mail, protection, and justice.

My case is that these services can be provided privately, without resorting to force to get people to pay for them. Because they are both useful and necessary, people will pay for them. Some of the other ones which while not necessary, are useful, such as welfare, and other social support services can be paid for voluntarily as well, because those who would not object to contributing would contribute voluntarily, to a charity which provides them.

Aha!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98916.0#new

If forcibly taxing a few rich people to make many poor people happy works, and it results in more total happiness than a charity would, then that taxation should be done. That's a big if-and, but I stand by the if-and-then. (Logically, taking the ((a AND b) --> c) as a whole, the whole is only false if (a is true, and b is true, and c is false)).

Except that forcible taxation has demonstrably been proven to create a great deal of unhappiness.

What if we silently stole all of Bill Gates' money and used it for welfare? Would that make many people happy?

I'm fairly certain it would... except for the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, Bill & Melinda themselves, their kids (do they have kids? I'm not sure.), All the people they employ, Microsoft, etc. So while it might make some people happy for a while, it would cause deep and lasting harm to many others.

You're a tenant within the nation you live in. You are granted rights to "own" property, which does not have the same meaning as the way the nation owns property. You are free to agree to these terms, or leave.

Now, take the HOA as an example. You're free to stay, pay dues, be regulated, or leave, but you'll ultimately have to square up with the HOA. If you stay, but don't pay dues and refuse to be regulated while in the HOA, legal issues will befall you.

here we go...

What happens when the tax is global and collected by the UN?

Complacency or rebellion, depending on the happiness of the people. Simple question. Simple answer.

You cant leave and go somewhere else without permission - passports etc

There really isnt anywhere to escape too from government on earth.

Then it appears that it's inevitable - government, that is. Ever considered then that AnCap won't last long, and evolve into government?

Where's the rental agreement? And if I don't own land, why am I being taxed for other things? And more importantly, why do they call it ownership, if it's really not?

Your W-4.


Because you're like a tenant of a landlord.


Semantics will never win an argument.

You seem to be mistaken. That is a tax form. It says nothing about tenancy. Moreover, it only applies to a specific subset of the population, of which I may or may not be a part.

So I say again, if I am a tenant of this nation in which I live, Where is the rental agreement?

I already answered your question. You make choices when you agree to be paid, pay, or what you choose to own. Just like in your fabled AnCap world, you can agree to enter into contracts and get the benefits, or not, and not get the benefits. In a nation, you can make choices to not earn, to not buy, to not own.

Imagine now, how in your AnCap world, you still have to make those choices, and be bound to the respective contracts.

Really, it all boils down to bundled contracts. You prefer a general unbundling. Fine! Go find a service provider in the world that unbundles it all for you. Note: you should read the last sentence to mean "Go find a nation that unbundles it all for you."

Your answer was decidedly a poor one. I can own property without ever once touching a W-4. So, find me a better "rental agreement", and show me where I signed.

I'll find you a better "rental agreement" when you find me a nation that offers what you want.

Nice try. But the thread title is not "Defend AnCap" I did that one already. It's "Defend Taxation" and you're failing miserably.

I don't quite follow you.

I'm not saying "don't attack AnCap", I'm just saying that this is not the thread to do it in. I'm looking, here, for justifications of taxation. Defending taxation on it's own merits, not tearing down other systems.

I find it interesting that you say government is inevitable. Why do you say that?

So far nobody's given me a decent justification for taxation. The closest has been FirstAscent, and he can't come up with my rental agreement, since he says that's what taxes are, rent to the State, so am I to conclude that Taxation has no justification?

Is it? I'd say is monopoly over justice (conflict resolution).
Isn't Monaco an example of tax-free state? I'm not sure, but I heard the government revenues in Monaco come exclusively from the prince's investments, properties (like his casino) and things like public parking and traffic tickets. But I'm not sure, you'd better check before believing me.

Anyway, that's not how I'd define a state. You could have a minimal state which doesn't tax, only charges for the particular services it provides and takes money from sources like punishments for having committed an aggression etc.

Oh, you had my hopes up on that one.... I'd love to be proven wrong on this one. (I'd start planning my trip immediately) But, no. :( Monaco does indeed levy taxes:

http://www.lowtax.net/lowtax/html/jmcpetx.html

Most notably:


You could, but I doubt most people would recognize it as a State. Certainly, it would not resemble anything we have today.

Please, this is nonsense. It assumes for granted that the state is the legitimate owner of all the territory it controls, which is obviously false.  You can't legitimately own a land you took by force (otherwise you'd be justifying theft by... theft! Brilliant! :D). You can't just claim enormous virgin territories as yours either (specially when parts of it are already occupied!).

Every state in this fucked world was established by violence, wars and crimes.  They do not legitimately own the land they claim thus they cannot claim their inhabitants are "tenants".

Actually, to be honest, if you consider Sealand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand) and the Hutt River (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River) principalities as actual states, then yeah, these would be the only two examples I know of legitimate states. If you go live there, you can be considered a tenant. I don't know any other example.

EDIT: I forgot to post this video, about the "you can always leave" argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqF-awFssf0&list=UUhG0VoTGXAB5gSsR0PHKg8A
;)

hehe, sorry for the deception - I'm also disappointed, but well, I should have expected it.

Maybe the Conch Republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic)?

UAE: Corporate taxes on Oil companies, mostly (Up to 55%, according to CNBC)
Qatar: 5% social security income tax (employers pay 10%), Tariffs, and they're considering a VAT.
Oman: 6.5 percent social security, 3% "stamp duty" on land purchases.
Kuwait: 7.5% social security income tax (employers pay 11%)

I could go on. but it's just more of the same.

I'm gonna be honest. I just don't feel like looking that up.  Still, tax is tax. Foreign banks pay 20%, as well, and there are import duties of up to 10% on non-alcohol or tobacco luxury goods, and as you said, 33% on booze and cigarettes... which most people just avoid by buying black market.

So, still no tax-free country, and still no justification for taxation. Can't say I'm surprised at either.

So, there's no tax-free country, as you admit. That's what has evolved. So you want a process which has evolved to be defended. Why? You have the opportunity to demonstrate the feasibility of a no tax society yourself. So far you've failed at demonstrating a working example of it in any significant size. But you still have the opportunity to create one. But I doubt you will succeed.

FirstAscent in his 17th century version: "So, there's no slavery-free country, as you admit. That's what has evolved. So you want a process which has evolved to be defended. Why?  You have the opportunity to demonstrate the feasibility of a no slaves society yourself. So far you've failed at demonstrating a working example of it in any significant size. "

Or even today: "So, there's no murder-free country, as you admit. That's what has evolved. So you want a process which has evolved to be defended. Why? You have the opportunity to demonstrate the feasibility of a no murder society yourself. So far you've failed at demonstrating a working example of it in any significant size. "


He won't succeed to create a tax-free nation because he'll likely be attacked by forces much stronger than him if he tries. As anyone trying to secede from the antique Roman empire to create a little slavery-free nation would be attacked and conquered.
That doesn't imply slavery or taxation are good or unavoidable. If anything, it only shows that unfortunately we live in a society of criminals (https://mises.org/daily/4125).

That said, a seastead (http://www.seasteading.org/) that manages to acquire actual sovereignty could be an example of "legitimate state", in which any "tax" they levy wouldn't be coercive and thus wouldn't enter in the definition of taxation OP is talking about. We can only hope they succeed.

Question: are you so hell bent on eliminating taxes that you'd rather live on a platform in the sea? Be my guest, while I enjoy a hike in the mountains this weekend.

Hum, let me see, earning almost trice* as much as I earn now... I guess I could afford to take a ferry each time I'm willing to visit the mountains. ;)

* Only in direct taxes, deducted from my payment and added to my employer's payroll, I could have 3 times more money. That does not count taxes embedded in things I buy. Of course, living in the sea would have its particular expenses, and I would have to pay for things which currently are covered by taxes. I'm pretty sure the net result can be quite positive though, specially when you take into account the prosperity added by the freer market context.

If seasteading really works out (a big if), it could have strong positive effects on continental governance as well, due to the competition it would generate. Anyways, that's getting too off-topic.

Three times? You need an accountant. Anyway, go live your dream on a converted oil rig or cruise ship. More power to you. I for one, cannot even begin to think that would be more desirable. But I can see for you, the real allure comes from satisfying your ideology, even to the point of putting it before the focus of just enjoying life.

Because though it "evolved", as you say, it is wrong, and coercive, and I say, unnecessary. Prove me wrong. That's what this thread is for. And you're still failing miserably.

Anyone would fail miserably in defending taxes to you (as by your standards). It's no great loss, though.

Probably.

But is that because taxes are undefendable? I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. If you can prove that I am.

If I say 2+2 is 5, you can show me, mathematically, how and where I am wrong. And when you do so, I will (however reluctantly) be forced to admit that 2+2 is, indeed, 4, and not 5.

Can you do the same with my argument that taxation is theft, and not only unnecessary, but wrong? I doubt it.

Taxation is no more theft than the paying of association dues. But if you don't view it that way, and reject taxes outright, at this point in your life, then are you really someone who's going to change his mind? Does it really matter that much to the rest of us how you think?

Yes, I know that you view association dues as voluntary. Good for you. But they really aren't that voluntary. The alternative is to move (being coerced to, it would seem) if you don't wish to pay the association dues.

Nobody really cares that you have labeled taxes as violent coercion. Because, really, it would seem that in your world with no taxes, I will be violently coerced to remain on my property if I object to payment of fees, tolls, and any number of other expenses.

I'll take the bundled package and simply not be bothered all the time by decisions of where I wish to be the least violently coerced on a daily basis, thank you.

So, now it's not rent, but association dues?

I've been in a Home-owner's association, before, they had a big long contract I had to sign before I could move in. I could probably still dig it up.

Where's the contract? When did I sign it?

I don't care where your contract is. I suppose it's your birth certificate, your citizenship papers, the signing of your tax return, the receipt you received for buying a hamburger that spells out the sales tax you paid, the W-4 you signed, the deed to your property, whatever.

I don't fucking care where your contract is. If you don't want to pay taxes, then don't earn and don't buy.

Let me make myself crystal clear: your AnCap world is going to nickel and dime me to death if I choose to live, and in ways that I will feel coerced to do so.

So I don't care that you're complaining and demanding that someone defend taxes to you. I don't care that your requirements for what a contract is not being met.

I don't fucking care.

Hmmm... Compelling argument.

Where did you miss the part within my argument that I said I don't care about what you require in the way of a contract or what you expect from others with regard to your viewpoint?

The part where you say you don't care, but keep posting.

Except that's not an argument for taxes. It's an argument for voluntary delegation, but not taxation. Voluntary delegation, FirstAscent's "bundled services" can, and probably would, since they're so convenient, exist in an AnCap society, but like cable TV, or insurance policies, you would get to choose which bundle.

Taxation is payment to your country/government for their "service" of allowing you to live/reside in their "property".

Now, you said that this was not a fair argument because countries don't really "own" their land because they claimed it through violence etc, but I disagree.  How else does one claim/own land (if not through violence)?  This goes back to John locke and Rousseau's ideas about property, but it is not possible for anyone to own anything without committing a "violence" against others.  If one wishes to claim land/property he is necessarily impeding on the rights of others by saying that they cannot enter/use this property now, he is committing a "violence" against them.

Imagine a "state of nature" where everybody owned/shared everything (no property). The first man to "claim land" is directly impeding on the rights of others by taking their property/preventing them from "using" the land that they were once able to use.

I suppose one could also imagine the "state of nature" as existing where nobody owns anything.  Still, a person claiming land and fencing out others is impeding on the "rights" of the others to possibly claim that land... This is perhaps weak, but still valid IMO.

I think there are only 2 rational conclusions:
1. Property is immoral and not-just.  Perhaps a "state of nature" as Rousseau described is what is "just"
2. property, and thus taxation, is "just"

This is an interesting argument. Decidedly flawed, but interesting.

If I stake a claim of unowned, virgin forest, am I thereby committing a violence on everyone else?

I edited my argument for further clarification.


yes

Still flawed, though. You contend that initially, everyone owned everything equally, even land they had never even seen?

Yes.  They were free to roam/use the land if they so chose.  They may never use the land but they still had the right too if they were so inclined.  The fencing off of a plot destroys that "right"

That's an interesting perspective. What if, instead of fencing it off, I plant wheat? Does that destroy the right of another to plant begonias?

John Locke would say that work entitles one to ownership.  His followers/thinkers claim that if one puts work into something, he necessarily owns it.  Incidentally, Karl Marx thinks the same thing...  Locke would say that you would own the land because you planted wheat, and it would be just for you to defend the wheat from others.

Rousseau would say that you can plant the wheat if you want, but that does not entitle you to ownership of the land.. OR of the wheat.  Anyone can just come take the wheat from you (well, he would claim you never owned it anyways) essentially..

But what about you, what do you say?

I agree with Locke, that work entitles one to ownership.  I don't really have a good reason for that belief though.  I can't seem to convince myself how it was "not" a violence for the first man to "claim" property.

Well, simple:
The other people had not worked on that land, and you had. Work entitles you to ownership, and since they had not worked on the land, they had no claim on it.

Well that works I suppose :).  So now the question is did the "government" put "work" in and justly acquire their "land" and therefore have the right to levy taxes?  ;D 

Well, did they? did they "mix their labor with the land", and then enter a rental agreement with a tenant?

I'd say probably no on the first part, and definitely no on the second part. Looks like you're stuck where FirstAscent self-destructed... the rental agreement.

Granted, the only way to come to this conclusion is to accept the premise "labor entitles own to ownership" as truth.  If one sticks to the Rousseau argument then property itself is not-just (either that, or violence is just ?)...

edit: I'm off to sleep.

Well, let's stick with "Labor entitles one to ownership", since denying property is just itself destroys any argument for taxation.

Where did government "mix it's labor with the land"? Who actually did that, since "government" isn't a person? And, most importantly, where did I sign an agreement to the effect that my residing here was subject to paying taxes?

Even assuming all of that, What kind of "Landlord" locks up tenants who don't pay? What kind of "landlord" brutalizes tenants who don't pay? What kind of "landlord" kills tenants who don't pay?

By acquiring it voluntarily or by homesteading an unowned resource. There's no violence in either case.


This is false. Nobody's right is being violated there, if you're claiming unowned resources by mixing your labor to it. If nobody owned that resource, how could someone have their rights violated? Who was there before?
The homesteading principle minimizes conflicts. Any other alternative will either (1) increase conflicts, (2) end-up with a "cast society", where some have more rights than others or (3) follow the "universal communism" path, that I comment below.


That's unfeasible. An ethical code that follows the "everybody owns everything equally" path would necessarily destroy mankind if followed rigorously. You wouldn't be allowed to do anything without consent from everybody else. You couldn't even use your own body (which wouldn't be yours btw, but equally shared by everybody else) without consent from others. But how would they even give their consent if they can't legitimately use their own bodies without consent from everybody?

You're asking good questions and you seem to have a much higher than average understanding. If you haven't already, I suggest you read Hoppe's texts on the ethics of private property. He can clearly explain what I'm writing here in much better words. A reading suggestion: https://mises.org/daily/1646/The-Ethics-and-Economics-of-Private-Property


You're wrongly assuming everybody else had a claim to the resource in question. There's no reason to assume that. You have no right to be able to use every resource available.


Property is just. But taxation, as done by practically every state in this world, is not. They'd have to be legitimate owners of the land they claim, what they obviously aren't.

How else would it be? Think in particular of the ocean, and especially how fluid it is, both in terms of its water, and in terms of the life within it, and migratory needs of the life. The landscape is no different, especially since I've gone over ecosystem services with you.

Allow me to give this a shot. I reject the is=ought argument that since bad states are widespread they are morally justified. IMHO my perspective is similar to Bjork's.

However, I don't buy into this "mixing labor with land makes the land mine". If you initiate force against me that's aggression, even if you think I'm trespassing. For all the talk of a voluntary society, I DON'T volunteer for this system of landed property, I don't consent to you (or your ancestors) claiming it. Landowners only pay a fraction of what their land is worth, and the ONLY way that private land ownership can be morally justified is if owners reimburse everyone who has been deprived of its use at 100% of its value.

That being said, we don't need a state to solve this problem: geoanarchism would be tolerable too, and I think geoist communities would outcompete "strong land rights" market anarchist groups. It might just be called "rent" and not "tax" but would amount to the same thing. That's why I don't mind even helping the AnCaps win; I think they're just wrong about one economic concept in a way that would solve itself in a free society.

But until that day, I've got no objections to land/pollution/extraction/spectrum/etc taxes.

Why is AnCap anything but a bunch of micro states, each with their own model of taxes and fees? And why is that better, for fuck's sake?

1. That's not what AnCap is.
2. A "city-state world" would be much, much better than the current world, nevertheless. And that's simply due to competition. If it's easy to emigrate, you can "vote with your feet". Emigrating is quite tough when you have to cut your roots and links. But when it's just moving to another city 100km away, you're not cutting any serious root, you won't face language/cultural barriers etc. In a city-state world, "bad states" would easily lose their subjects to the neighboring, "less-bad states". Such competition would push good policies and kill bad policies. Think of state subjects as "costumers of governance", which in this scenario can change their "governance providers" much easier. In our current world, changing your "governance provider" is something extremely expensive (difficult) in many ways, and "startup governments" are a practical impossibility. We are hostages of inefficient monopolies.
3. Now change "moving away to a neighboring state" for "resigning your current contract and signing a new one" and you have perhaps a summary of what's actually a decentralized law system (AnCap)
 
EDIT: On the subject of competitive governance, I'd recommend this nice talk by Patri Friedman (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R8HG40yv20). There's also this blog (http://athousandnations.com/).

Then read Hoppe's text. The one I linked to Bjork above is a good start.
There's really no acceptable alternative to the homesteading principle.

But, even if you don't yet accept homesteading, the question of why, for instance, the Brazilian government claim to the Amazon is valid and mine (or anybody else's claim) isn't stays open.
Plus the fact that all modern states used war to establish their territories. Justifying taxation by saying that states are legitimate owners of lands they took by force is justifying theft by theft.

You're funny. Why do you make the following assumptions:

1. Moving to another city-state would be easier than moving to another country (aside from language)?

2. City-states wouldn't merge for security and/or economies of scale?

3. Free trade between city-states would magically be optimal the way you see it?

4. Trade and travel across city-states would not be fraught with transit fees, tariffs, taxes, tolls and so on?

Hey, we didn't use war to get Alaska

I'm not arguing that states have any more right to claim land than you do. The entire earth belongs to the people of earth and states are not legitimate "owners". My claim is that the state can be a useful tool to reimburse the public for such widespread (and arguably practical) aggression. Democratic control over land isn't theft because privatizing it in the FIRST place was the theft.

I'm curious, do the AnCaps here think that after the revolution is over, the masses will be content to watch us enjoy our Bitcoin mansions tax-free? You're going to have to pay them some kind of protection money or provide a public good, or someone working for your private security will get rich off your assassination market.

Consider the following story with two characters: Mike and Hawk.

Hawk owns an island in the south Pacific. It is his own private domain. He's the ultimate NAPster, free from any government. He recently met Mike, an aspiring NAPster. He invites Mike to come visit his island.

The two fellows sit on Hawk's veranda, sipping drinks and admiring the expanse of Hawk's beautiful island. A conversation ensues.

Hawk: "Why don't you stay here? I'll sell you a ten acre parcel on the south side of the island."

Mike: "Oh, I'd love that. I can live the NAP dream here."

Hawk: "Yes. There are some terms you must agree with though, as this is my island. Remember, I'm a NAPster true and true, and since this is my island, I make the rules."

Mike: "Uh, what are those?"

Hawk: "Well, when you buy that parcel of land from me, I'll grant you ownership rights, but they won't be like the ownership rights I have."

Mike: "Uhhh..."

Hawk: "When you buy the parcel, you'll have the right to sell it to someone else down the road. However, you'll have to pay me an annual fee while you own it based on my assessment of the land's value. Furthermore, any business you conduct on your property will be subject to various taxes and such."

Mike: "Hey, that doesn't sound right."

Hawk: "Oh, but it is. This is NAPism true and true. I own the island. I make the rules. However, I'll give you some freedoms above and beyond NAP. I'll invite others in to buy up parcels with the same rules. But, if you and they so choose, you and they can vote to change those rules I made, even though this is my fucking island."

Mike Hawk hurts!

Mike: "Then keep it. I'm going someplace I can actually own land. Enjoy your Island."

And so you decide to go where? America? Australia? China? Syria?

No, another island. You still haven't successfully defended Taxation.

What's your excuse this time?

Wait hold on a second. Don't dodge the question. Where does Mike go?

Another Island in the south pacific, presumably magicked up from the same place the first one was.

Still waiting for someone to justify someone putting a gun in my face and saying "you owe me for being born here."

No one is suggesting that.

That is precisely what taxation is.

Bullshit. If you poison everyone's air, we're justified in demanding you reimburse everyone you hurt. That's a pollution tax, not a birth tax. You know this.

I was born here on earth, but you would force me to pay rent to private landowners or die. THAT'S a lot more like a birth tax if you ask me.

1. That's restitution, not tax.

2. False dichotomy. Get your own land, pay no rent.

1. If we use a state to organize compulsory restitution, that is a tax. Drop the semantics.

2. If all land is owned, how do I get my own without paying the NPV of all its future rents?

And you haven't explained how anything anyone here proposes is a birth tax.

1. No, taxes, by definition, go to the state. Restitution goes to the victim.

2. I'm not familiar with the abbreviation "NPV", but purchasing land does not include the value of all future rents. It includes the current value of that land. All you have to do is offer enough that the owner will forgo those future (potential) rents, for the immediate (definite) purchase price.

1. What do you call it when the state collects these funds for the purpose of dividing it up between victims? Maybe I've been against taxes all along.  :o

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value
It does include all future rents, but discounted due to risk like you describe. So yeah, I have to either pay landlords or die. Telling me to just offer more is like telling you to just convince people to vote differently.

1. A court judgment? Tax is, "Money demanded by the state, to fund it's operations" (paraphrasing the definition from my earlier post)

2. No, you have to pay land owners, or be homeless. Significant difference, and still a false dichotomy. There are other ways of acquiring land than purchasing it. You can inherit it, for instance. You also have to work (in some manner) in order to eat. Is that an injustice, as well?

@OP, not @current discussion.

(I'm a U.S. resident)

I like anti-trust laws and their enforcement. (I'm pretty certain)

I like that the cost of educating all of our children is distributed. I want to pay for less privileged children to have a shot at a life. (Maybe there is a better way of doing this than with taxes...)

Today I was just thinking that I like that I can pick up any package of food or any beverage and get what feels like a pretty rigorous and trustworthy analysis of its contents. I often take this for granted, but it is something I use on a daily basis. It is invaluable to me.

Well, since the Anti-trust thing is going to be the "hard" fight, let me knock down the two easy ones first, then come back to it. Since we're doing it that way, we'll just go ahead and work backwards.

First, the product analysis. That's actually not funded by taxes, but it is legislated, so I'll do it anyway. Would you eat packaged foods that didn't have that handy chart on them? I probably would, but it is useful, so I would likely prefer foods that had it over foods that did not. Given that, it's likely that manufacturers would continue the practice of putting analysis of their products on the packaging, even without legislation requiring it. Even if they don't, there is a market demand for that information, so it would be provided, perhaps by a non-profit organization. One example that could be implemented with today's technology is a smartphone app which looks up that information in a database when the product's UPC code is scanned.

Distributed education cost. There most definitely is a better way to do that than taxes. I guarantee there are other people with as much caring for the underprivileged kids' education as you out there, and enough, surely, that you can, combined, pay for all those kids' education. Charities are a great way to voluntarily fund social programs like that. Kickstarter is another. Without the tax burden, you could pick and choose which social programs you want to fund, rather than giving it all to the state, and watching them piss away the money you wanted to go to educating inner-city kids on killing other countries' inner-city kids.

OK, now the big boy. First, a fun fact. In 1865, when Rockefeller’s (Standard Oil) market share was still minuscule, a gallon of kerosene cost 58 cents. In 1870, Standard’s market share was 4%, and a gallon cost 26 cents. By 1880, when Standard’s market share had skyrocketed to 90%, a gallon cost only 9 cents — and a decade later, with Standard’s market share still at 90%, the price was 7 cents. (source (http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/13/vindicating-standard-oil-100-years-later/#ixzz232pW9r72))

Second, Anti-trust laws don't do what you think they do. I'm probably going to get blasted for linking to C4SS, but that's where you're going to find this kind of information. I challenge anyone who complains to refute the article on its merits, not on its origin. This article is about the FDA, specifically, but it talks about the subject of Trusts and Cartels, as that's basically what the FDA is all about: http://c4ss.org/content/11299

Seriously? Isn't this obvious? Language, for a start, is a huge barrier. No wonder same-language immigration is more common.
And... don't you have friends, family? What about culture? Eventually properties you want to keep etc. There are so many barriers in long distance immigration, you must be too cynic to even ask such question.
Just compare the percentage of people who don't live in the same city/town they were born with the percentage of people who don't live in the same nation they were born.


I'm not assuming that wouldn't happen (although the actual reason would never be economies of scale, that might be an excuse perhaps). I'm just saying that if it happens, it will be a change from a better configuration to a worse one. A regression.


Not sure I understood your question. Free trade is always optimal.
If you are wondering if free-trade would really happen, then well, I say it would, because these city-states would not be able to afford creating large barriers to trade. And the more free-trade there is, there richer the city-state would be, attracting more immigrants as I explained before.
But, even if you believe free trade is bad and we should only trade locally (what's false, but let's take it for granted), then still you have to agree that the city-states who raise such barriers would be more prosperous, and others would copy.

The point with competition is that it creates incentives to improvements. We don't even need to agree on what "improvement" means to see it.


Again, I'm pretty sure the city-states who follow such path would prosper less, and thus competition would end up killing such bad policies. But the same thing I said above applies. If you believe free immigration is bad for the economy, it should be clear to you that the city-states which allow it would have economic issues, compared with those which don't allow it.


By the way, do you know of a single empiric counter-example to this theory?
Can you point a micro-state, encrusted in a larger state, which is not better off than the large state? All examples I know are better off (Monaco, Lichtenstein, Singapore etc). Even when we take very-autonomous-but-not-really-independent regions like Hong Kong, Macau or Gibraltar, the principle remains.
There might be a few exceptions as for every rule, but I don't know any. It's clear that, in general, micro-states are better off than their neighboring large states.

So.. I can only conclude that you think theft is OK as long as the stolen money is used in a way you like..?

1. Thank you! You just made all my future arguments with anarchists much easier. My support of men with guns demanding restitution for the people isn't a tax, it's a court judgement! I hereby request you report for arbitration on November 4th at a voting booth near your home.

2. If every natural source of food has been privatized, taking away my ability to hunt/farm without paying a capitalist, then yes that is an injustice. I do not agree to give you full ownership of something no person has created, and was a shared resource by default.

In case anyone is interested in what I'm actually saying and not Myrkul's impressive interpretation, a good summary is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

1. Wait, now you're including voting into things? That's a whole other kettle of violent fish. Let's not go there - unless you want to, but do it in another thread, this one's about taxation. You can have men with guns who demand restitution under AnCap, as well, that's called a defense agency.

2. Hunting and/or farming is work, as well. I didn't specify work for someone. I didn't even specify buy. You need to output labor in order to appropriate resources, whether those resources are land, food, or material goods. That labor may be in raw form (farming, hunting, etc), or it may be in condensed liquid form (currency).

1. Well gosh, VOTING?!?! If you're so surprised I think we should VOTE on the things I outright called a tax from the start, then maybe you shouldn't try to play semantics and act like you have no idea how taxes and governments work. I don't even know how you think there COULD be taxes without government, which in a modern context assumes voting.

2. Brilliant, if I was arguing against work, which I'm not. I'm arguing against giving away land for free to whoever gets there first and "homesteads" it.

1. Except that nothing that you've called a tax has actually been a tax, and the justification for taxation that your stated (or at least linked to) philosophy supports (and which might actually have a chance of standing up under fire), you haven't used.

2. You "homestead" the deer when you hunt it, the tomato when you harvest it, how is that any different than homesteading the land, when you till it?

1. Then let's stop wasting time. I'm proposing we vote on people with guns to go door to door demanding payment for land use, and distribute that between residents of the jursidiction. Either call that a tax and dispute it, or call it restitution and don't. Every other libertarian I've ever talked to calls this a tax. Your call.

2. The deer and tomato are natural capital.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_capital
If you're collecting tomatoes in a public place, you should reimburse everyone else whose tomatoes you're taking. If you've paid land taxes to farm them in private, we're already getting reimbursed for the factor of production so any surplus tomatoes you can grow belong to you.

Example:
Plot of land will naturally yield 10 tomatoes.
We allow you to privatize it.
Under your wise supervision, the plot yields 100 tomatoes.
We still deserve reimbursement for the 10 tomatoes we can no longer pick, but not the 90 that are a result of your labor - those are yours.

Thanks (again) for your level-headed and well thought out reply.

Back to the thinking board...

Here's an excellent example of natural capital at work. Please read the article: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/blue-whale-poop/

So, when you kill a whale, do you have to reimburse everyone for:
1. The whale they can no longer kill
2. All the life it will no longer stimulate
3. Its infinite theoretical offspring

And you get to keep the blubber?

Also, the deleterious effects on the climate, assuming you read the article fully. Which in turn affects the value of real estate, species extinction rates on land due to their inability to relocate their habitats due to barriers, which in turn affects the health of ecosystems due to how species co-evolved to live together...

To be comprehensive, we also need compensation for:

- The ecosystem services the plot supplied prior to being repurposed for growing tomatoes.
- The deleterious effects to the ecosystem viability of neighboring plots, due to edge effects.

I will concede that the plot, as a tomato crop still provides some ecosystem services, but it has generally been shown that conversion to agricultural use (especially specialized single crop use) results in a severely depleted set of ecosystem services provided.

Again, it all boils down to the importance of fully understanding the mechanisms of the environment, and the importance of ecological studies.

What if I levitate the whales to my moon-habitat, then levitate their offspring back?

Simple, we all live in a social group called a community.  In that community there are services that the general public uses and needs to be maintained.   The system we use to collectively pay for these services are called "taxes or taxation".   To be specific here are some of the services that fall into this category:  National defense, prison, major roads, Public Utilities, Fire & Police.   

You may feel compelled to challenge these but each one fits a very important public good.   I do believe people can operate outside of a social group but those are rare and we are social beings at the core of our nature. 

Being that you call people who would give reasoning to taxes, a statist, lends me to believe you challenge the legitimacy of a state.  Is this true?

Dalkore

Did you ask the whale?

http://www.google.com/#q=whale+personhood&oq=whale+personhood

So basically, it's unethical for me to kill any animal without giving everyone in the world an infinite sum of  money and paying damages to the animal's family. I guess I'll just go on being unethical, then.

It's unethical to eat anything (be alive), then.

That's kinda why I stuck with tomatoes, since we're focused on taxes here, not animal rights. For the sake of argument I'm assuming not all whales are people.

The sum to be paid would not be infinite - it would just be expensive enough to maintain equilibrium. (Not to put words in FirstAscent's mouth) IMHO cap & trade is the most efficient existing way to distribute natural resources like whales, so we would auction off whaling permits. It does however introduce the weakness of "who maintains the cap?" so there I'll admit my argument is weak compared to potential market-based alternatives.

Part of the reason I like this forum is because I do think we can eventually do better, and solve these problems without a state. But until then I'm very hesitant take an existential risk.

I'm going to continue eating. Thank you for your consideration, FirstAscent, but I will not become a vegetarian either. I also have no problem eating octopus; it's quite delicious.

Empathy need not be metered out on a black and white scale. I truly loathe the argument that says "They're not people." That's black and white. Likewise, arguing for the rights of that fly or mosquito that is annoying you is not something I particularly wish to hear either.

But even in the case of flies and mosquitoes, I'm in favor of arguing for the necessity of preserving species, as they are beneficial to ecosystems and by extension the ecosystem services they provide.

What are you addressing, as it seems clear you're missing something here. Did you know that I eat and enjoy hamburgers and steaks, as well as chickens?

Do you reimburse society for them?

For the loss of cattle? There are already too many cattle on the planet. The extra ones do not provide ecosystem services. The real question should be: does the cattle industry reimburse the environment for the damage it does by the extermination of wolves, by polluting the ground, and so on. If governmental policy would be more proactive in this arena, then beef would cost more. Depending on what that price rose to, then at some point I would stop eating beef.

Do you deny that by eating beef, you are creating demand and creating an incentive to wrong the environment?

No. But you must understand that I have stated more than once that environmentalism is about reducing ignorance on how it works, and enacting policy and processes which work at a large scale through scientific study. I have specifically stated that actions at the individual level are not the solution. As an example, I have stated that people who think recycling plastic bottles is a solution to the environment are not understanding the real processes, and the real issues.

nimda,

Furthermore, in addition to the above post, it should be clear what would actually be accomplished if I stopped eating beef: Nothing. My cessation of beef consumption would not change beef consumption in total. The only thing that would result is me not being able to enjoy beef anymore, while others continued. If I died tomorrow, obviously my beef consumption would cease as well, but it would achieve nothing with regard to the environmental effects of the cattle industry.

And that's why voluntary environmentalism is a solution without teeth. Unified action, generally in the form of regulation and policy does have teeth.

It's directly analogous to the "Buffett tax". Buffett was ridiculed by the right, who suggested that Buffett should just voluntarily donate more taxes. Again, it would accomplish nothing. What Buffett clearly meant, was that he would pay more taxes if all the super rich had to pay taxes. And that would have an effect.

If you ask that question, this must be the first of my posts you have read. ;) Yes, I challenge the legitimacy of the state. I'll be getting back to the other conversation in a little bit, but first, I wanted to take care of this post.

First, I don't deny that those are all useful and indeed in some cases, necessary services. (maybe not so much prison, but that's another debate)

What I contest is that those services need to be paid for by force. All of those, even prison, can be provided on the open market, and paid for, voluntarily, by those who need them. A little reference material for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_anarchism

Now, back to the greater debate.

All of this depends on whether you define land in it's state of nature as being unowned, or collective property. If you allow that all land, and indeed, all things not man-made, are collectively owned by all until appropriated by someone, then you have an effective argument for taxation. I do not. And it's not just on principle that I reject this notion. There's a very practical reason why I reject it. It's inefficient.

Let's take your tomato example. Let's say that I and 10 of my neighbors grow tomatoes. To illustrate the concept, I'll limit the redistribution to just those 11 people. I start out with 100 tomatoes, and so does everyone else. the land, naturally produces 10 in that area, so the government comes along and takes those 10 from each of us. Now, it has 110 tomatoes, and we each have 90. The government then takes it's cut - 11 tomatoes, leaving 99 - and redistributes the others evenly. So now the government has 11 tomatoes, and we each have 99. The net effect is that someone has come along and stolen 1% of our tomatoes, and given us nothing in return.

Scale this however you want, it comes back to the same fact: paying everyone else for the use of your property is, at best, a shuffling of resources with no net effect, and at worst, a waste of some percentage to whatever administration oversees that shuffling.

I would further argue that land taxes enhance the efficiency of a society. First of all, land taxes don't cause a significant deadweight loss (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Land_value_tax&oldid=497284062#Efficiency).

Then the state can then spend those funds on positive externalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Externality&oldid=506624615#Positive), which are more efficient than basic income. This is less ethically justifiable than simple restitution since it's paternalistic, but we have moved on to efficiency after all.

Net effect = externalities - tax revenue - admin overhead
It can be positive and promotes growth.

Well, I don't have to describe in detail the system I propose, because it has been described in great detail elsewhere. Specifically, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

As to the prison system, you are conflating prison (where the inmates are held) with justice (where the decisions are made) separate these two institutions, and even (in fact, especially) if both are private, you will get laws that reflect the best interests of everyone, and a prison system that doesn't mistreat its inmates.

How can you argue that, when I just gave an example that shows it's false? Land taxes are only efficient when compared to the current system.

Present a counterexample to the tomato farmers.

Your example shows the inefficiency of simple restitution, assuming no negative externalities caused by poverty.

For counterexample, the tomato state could sell some tomatoes and spend the proceeds on public tomato farming research, thus increasing the total tomato supply even more.

It could. That funding could just as easily (and more efficiently) have come directly from the farmers themselves, however.

If you give a rational tomato farmer the choice between
A. Spending on his own crops (which helps him a lot)
B. Spending it on tomato research (which helps him little)
He will choose A, even though B helps the average tomato farmer more. It's a prisoner's dilemma.

If each person spends on his own crops, then, would not all the farmers be better off by a lot, rather than the little the research would produce? Your example doesn't make much sense. If the end result is that the research would help more than spending on his own crops, any rational farmer would fund the research. If the end result is the research would help less than spending on his own crops, no rational farmer would.

Let's say spending on his own crops nets an increased yield of 3 tomatoes, and that research would result in an increased yield of 2 tomatoes for everyone. It would then be in everyone's best interest to spend on their own crops. But if the research would yield 5 more tomatoes for everyone, it's now in everyone's best interest to fund the research, and it would get funded.

And how are you going to know what the increased yields from research will be? You don't.

Not precisely, no. But if I am forced to pay for shitty research, I'm going to be pissed off. If I choose to pay for research that fails to pay off, I made a bad investment. It happens.

Right, but the point is

There's no way to quantify what research is worth beforehand, because this isn't a video game where you can choose to tech up to level two crops and increase yields by 20%.

No, the point is, tax-funded research is a gamble that I don't have a say in. It's one thing if I gamble with my money. it's another thing entirely if you're gambling with my money (that you took from me by force).

(Bolded above)
Those are the projects that taxes ought to fund. Everyone has more tomatoes by taxing and funding research instead of leaving everyone their own tomatoes. I was incorrect to call it a prisoner's dilemma, it's really a volunteer's dilemma (see payoff matrix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer%27s_dilemma#Payoff_matrix)). So in a free market we still get some public good spending when the personal benefit is great, but not all public goods are like that so we'd have less than is optimal.

You can always move if you don't like the laws in the country you choose to live in.

I'm kinda arguing against myself here, but sometimes that's not a realistic option. Particularly for Myrkul, since an AnCap alternative is not yet available. There are initial moving costs, employment opportunity costs, and travel costs for visiting family too.

Sure I'm being extreme, but so is saying "Taxation is theft". Sure it's true if it's his belief system, but taxes are just a side effect of government. That's the root of the problem, so arguing one of the consequences is kind of moot, since it's inevitably going to turn into another ancap thread (already did). Or even degrees of taxation, what should be taxed, and what they should pay for since taxes are more or less a given. Like the old saying, death and taxes.

It has been demonstrated that tax funded research tackles issues that smaller risk averse individuals, organizations, businesses and corporations will not engage in. Think NASA, DARPA, etc. We now have private business models doing research to engage in space travel (still with government help), and they are about fifty (yes, fifty) years behind in ability and achievement, and even so, they're only there because of what was done fifty years ago.

More to the point, you're demonstrating right now, as the hypothetical tomato farmer your unwillingness to commit to research because you are risk averse. Consider your position:

1. Your research might or might not result in a 10 or 20 percent increase in yield. There's no way that will pay for the research.
2. Of course, you could sell your findings to your competitors, and then they'll have the same competitive advantage as you. That is a possibility.
3. Your competitors may just observe your methods, steal some tomatoes from you, and then you're kind of screwed.
4. If you don't share your information, and your competitors can't figure it out, then society definitely doesn't benefit.

The big things (the important things) require unified effort. The environment is one of those.

Bottom-line is if you have no government then the only recourse you have to enforce contract and individual right is force.  A strong majority of people would rather have a large body like government enforcing rights and agreements than direct application of force.   What you are advocating is survival of the fittest and yes it is that way in nature and in pre-civilization human history. 

BUT, this is why we decided to group up and form societies, nations and states.  We all agree to give up a little so we can have a fairer application of force across the entire body of people with the same rule-set to create justice (fair).   

People that advocate no rules or government in my opinion want to instead apply their force at their discretion and NOT be held accountable if they are deficient in an agreement.  Those are not people I want to deal with.   You need accountability and person responsibility to have markets functions and real justice.

If you're less than slightly wealthy. Expatriation tax fucks you if you're not, and try to leave the U.S.


Unfortunately government at best neglects to enforce rights and agreements, and at worst uses force to destroy rights and agreements. Government, in its Quixotic quest for human perfectibility, while almost entirely composed of sociopaths and those "just following orders", destroys any chance of human progress towards liberty.

So, you're advocating stealing 3 tomatoes from everyone, and in return, giving research that will increase yield by 2? How is that any better than stealing 10 tomatoes from everyone, and giving everyone back 9?


If you can find me a plantation country where there is no slavery taxation, I'll move in a heartbeat.


...You didn't actually read that article, did you? Go back and read the article on Anarcho-capitalism that I linked. You may want to start with this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Law_and_order_and_the_use_of_violence

If you're going to start calling it "stealing" again, then we can go back to the ethics side of the debate. I still maintain that labor, not first dibs, is what justifies ownership.

Now then, I was under the impression that you were saying EACH 3 tomato individual contribution grants EVERYONE an additional 2 tomatoes. This is how externalities work, maybe someone else can explain it better.

Sure, labor justifies ownership. That's the basis of homesteading. I put my labor into the land, so it's mine. You didn't, so it's not yours.

Now, if every 3 tomatoes in produces two more tomatoes out for everyone, It's easy to see that he only needs to get one other person to contribute for them both to benefit (give three tomatoes, totaling 6, get 4 each, totaling 8 ), and it should be clear that each additional contributor after the second only increases the profit. No rational actor is going to pass that up.

You can put your labor into structures on the land, or improve the natural capital of the land, but your labor doesn't create the land itself.

Why wouldn't I pass up collaborating when I can free ride on the two of you collaborating? Do you acknowledge the existence of the free rider problem, or the volunteer's dilemma?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Islands ;)

You could free ride (and I don't deny that that might be a problem for public goods, but there are ways of making them profitable without resorting to violence) and get 4 more tomatoes next crop, or I could contribute 3, and get 6. Honestly, though, once the study is profitable for those who fund it, does it matter if the others get it free?

Land (economics) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_(economics))
In this context land refers to the area, not the dirt.

It does matter if other people are getting it for free, because then less public goods would be produced than is optimal. YOU brought up EFFICIENCY, not mere functionality.

Regardless, labor justifies the ownership. You cannot separate the improvements from the land and take them with you, making them part of that land. You cannot own a field without owning the land.

And who decides what is optimal? What if a farmer is fine with 4 more tomatoes due to the research, and prefers to use the funding that would have netted him two additional tomatoes on funding wheat research for his other plot? Or on a Kindle so he has something to do in the middle of winter? Or on the space program? True, forcing every tomato farmer to fund research on tomato farming would (probably) produce greater results in tomato farming, but will also necessarily de-fund other projects, which may produce more desirable results in another field.

Both of those are practical concerns, not ethical or efficiency concerns. Despite their physical inseperability, land and improvements can be assessed independently from one another. And we decide what spending is optimal by measuring and aggregating individual utility - bum bum bummmm.....
Voting. [crowd shieks in horror]

First it was ethics, then efficiency, now you're doubting the practicality of a tax-funded state. I'm getting a little tired of winning at each category and moving on to the next, so I will leave it to others to continue failing to convince you for a while. :P

By definition, if you are failing to convince me, you are not "winning". The market is a better aggregator of individual utility than is voting, because it gives each person their desired outcome, instead of forcing up to 49.9999 percent of the population to go with the herd. The market is the best allocator of resources because those who most value them will get them. Market solutions always beat state solutions, hands down.

You're not winning, you're just running out of excuses.
http://www.libertystickers.com/static/images/productimage-picture-i-was-a-minarchist-but-i-ran-out-of-excuses-466.gif

Next!

United effort doesn't have to be backed by force. https://twitter.com/#!/search/?q=%23fundNASA&src=hash

What we are talking about here is a broken system.   I agree, our system completely out of whack in almost every way, what I don't advocate this form of government, I don't see courts upholding these right with some central authority, what ever it may be.   


Dalkore

The "central authority" does not create fundamental human rights, at best it only enumerates them (and proceeds to violate them with practical impunity). Without the backing of nuclear weapons and all lesser destructive military force options, and ability to control the supply of currency that our government currently has, judges can honor and enforce human rights and contracts, or be found to be illegitimate tyrants, and suffer the consequences.