What do you believe is moral?

[mprep]

taxes are needed unless we want a complete anarchy.

This is incorrect.  Government could be funded voluntarily.  It's not binary between taxes and anarchy.

Most people won't fund. That's a fact. There aren't many people who like to share especially with the government. The more money people get, the less they want to give away.

[Anon136]

taxes are needed unless we want a complete anarchy.

This is incorrect.  Government could be funded voluntarily.  It's not binary between taxes and anarchy.

This will admittedly be an argument of symantics but i dont think this is correct. Tax collection is one of the defining characteristics of government. Any organization that is funded voluntarily is necessarily not a government by virtue of the fact that it is funded voluntarily.

I think the right term for an organization that behaves like a government in other ways but doesnt force people to fund it would be mutual aid society.

[Elwar]

The more money people get, the less they want to give away.

Source?

[wdmw]

taxes are needed unless we want a complete anarchy.

This is incorrect.  Government could be funded voluntarily.  It's not binary between taxes and anarchy.

This will admittedly be an argument of symantics but i dont think this is correct. Tax collection is one of the defining characteristics of government. Any organization that is funded voluntarily is necessarily not a government by virtue of the fact that it is funded voluntarily.

I think the right term for an organization that behaves like a government in other ways but doesnt force people to fund it would be mutual aid society.

If you define government as 'The monopoly on force in a given geographic area, which is funded through involuntary taxation', then you are absolutely correct.  More correct would be what you said, or 'The administration of society need not be funded through involuntary taxation.'

[Anon136]

taxes are needed unless we want a complete anarchy.

This is incorrect.  Government could be funded voluntarily.  It's not binary between taxes and anarchy.

This will admittedly be an argument of symantics but i dont think this is correct. Tax collection is one of the defining characteristics of government. Any organization that is funded voluntarily is necessarily not a government by virtue of the fact that it is funded voluntarily.

I think the right term for an organization that behaves like a government in other ways but doesnt force people to fund it would be mutual aid society.

If you define government as 'The monopoly on force in a given geographic area, which is funded through involuntary taxation', then you are absolutely correct.  More correct would be what you said, or 'The administration of society need not be through involuntary taxation.'

hm so its hard to imagine what a government might use its monopoly on violence for other than taxation but it is possible.

so like imagine you had a sadistic ruler who just liked to kidnap people for fun, but he never took any of the property of the people he kidnapped and never forced them to work for his benefit. his kidnapping adventures were funded voluntarily by the community and people generally accepted his kidnapping because they thought it was necessary.

would he still be a government? yea i suppose he would.

[wdmw]

The more money people get, the less they want to give away.

Source?

I assume he's referring to the opposite of what this data shows.

[wdmw]

hm so its hard to imagine what a government might use its monopoly on violence for other than taxation but it is possible.

so like imagine you had a sadistic ruler who just liked to kidnap people for fun, but he never took any of the property of the people he kidnapped and never forced them to work for his benefit. his kidnapping adventures were funded voluntarily by the community and people generally accepted his kidnapping because they thought it was necessary.

would he still be a government? yea i suppose he would.

A government could use its monopoly on violence to reduce the occurrence of force and fraud.

[mprep]

The more money people get, the less they want to give away.

Source?

Off shore companies. Some softer examples: Microsoft, Google, etc. paying their taxes through Ireland due to it's small percentage required. Also the chart mention later shows the people that donate in US. US. If the ide of taxes payed voluntariraly might cherish in the US, but what about the rest of the world?

[Anon136]

hm so its hard to imagine what a government might use its monopoly on violence for other than taxation but it is possible.

so like imagine you had a sadistic ruler who just liked to kidnap people for fun, but he never took any of the property of the people he kidnapped and never forced them to work for his benefit. his kidnapping adventures were funded voluntarily by the community and people generally accepted his kidnapping because they thought it was necessary.

would he still be a government? yea i suppose he would.

A government could use its monopoly on violence to reduce the occurrence of force and fraud.

Ya like a legitimately benevolent and wise dictator. Too bad that will never happen  .

[crumbs]

[...]
10) Would it be morally wrong for the majority to elect someone with their votes to hire tax agents and police to go collect taxes from me?

This is a problematic question in a whole bunch of ways.  
Is it morally wrong for people to hire cops to catch thieves?  If you answered "yes," then the answer to your tenth question should also be "yes."  Consistent.
If you answered "no," the answer to your last question is also "no."  Not paying your share of the taxes to the community (in this case, a statist one in which you live) is simply stealing from that community.  

The community is poorer for you not having paid your taxes.  You've done nothing different from not paying your bill -- steal.  The government will not say "Elwar hasn't paid his taxes, we'll just have to tighten our belts & learn to be more frugal."  It will simply raise the taxes, making the law-abiding people pay for your share.  See where these folks might get the notion to send those pesky revenuers after you?

If i should rob you because i feel it's wrong for you to hoard money when others have none, is it morally right for you to call the cops on me?  Expand

[crumbs]

I assume he's referring to the opposite of what this data shows.

3.7 billion total people in '72, 7.1 billion people today. What's your point?

[Rassah]

A government could use its monopoly on violence to reduce the occurrence of force and fraud.

Ya like a legitimately benevolent and wise dictator. Too bad that will never happen  .

Why not? That's how Cosa Nostra in southern Italy works. They're not technically "government," but they do function in place of it.

[Rassah]

Does anyone else think that "voluntarily hiring someone to protect your property" is morally equivalent to "others hiring someone to take your property against your will?"

[crumbs]

Does anyone else think that "voluntarily hiring someone to protect your property" is morally equivalent to "others hiring someone to take your property against your will?"

Depends on your ethics & if your property was stolen from me.

[Elwar]

The more money people get, the less they want to give away.

Source?

Off shore companies. Some softer examples: Microsoft, Google, etc. paying their taxes through Ireland due to it's small percentage required. Also the chart mention later shows the people that donate in US. US. If the ide of taxes payed voluntariraly might cherish in the US, but what about the rest of the world?

Exactly...people in the US donate more. Who has the lowest tax burden?

Taxes and the government providing everything stifles charity and giving. There is an actual human need to give and it has been found that the happiest people are those that give.

Government stealing from people and giving flies flat in the face of real happiness.

[mprep]

The more money people get, the less they want to give away.

Source?

Off shore companies. Some softer examples: Microsoft, Google, etc. paying their taxes through Ireland due to it's small percentage required. Also the chart mention later shows the people that donate in US. US. If the ide of taxes payed voluntariraly might cherish in the US, but what about the rest of the world?

Exactly...people in the US donate more. Who has the lowest tax burden?

Taxes and the government providing everything stifles charity and giving. There is an actual human need to give and it has been found that the happiest people are those that give.

Government stealing from people and giving flies flat in the face of real happiness.

You still didn't answer my last question. Also don't think that everyone thinks that giving brings happiness, my idealist friend.

[wdmw]

Taxation and Morality - StormCloudsGathering

I like what he has to say about taxation.

[wdmw]

Taxation and Morality - StormCloudsGathering

I like what he has to say about taxation.

Here's the follow up.
Forced Taxation is Slavery - StormCloudsGathering

[Elwar]

You still didn't answer my last question. Also don't think that everyone thinks that giving brings happiness, my idealist friend.

It is not idealist, there are plenty of studies to show that people who give charitably are happier and happier people give, creating a happiness loop.

If given the choice of being robbed or giving to something that you care about, which would you choose? Which do you believe would bring you more happiness?

[hawkeye]

Morality as a concept is changing: some things become moral, some - immoral.

No it's not.  There's what's right and what's wrong.   When slavery was around there was a small amount of people around who knew it was wrong.  The rest of society either didn't know because they hadn't thought about it or used the excuse that ii had been around a long time, or that the majority approved or that it was necessary or some combination of those.  Unfortunately, that's all it was, an excuse.  Same is true for today for taxation.  Either people haven't thought about it or they're making some excuse for it because they either benefit or they don't have the imagination to think of life without it.   But it's just an excuse, because there are people around pointing out the immorality of it just like there was back in the heyday of slavery.

And the same is true of human sacrifice or any number of accepted immoral traditions throughout history.  

Man started in this world not knowing much and built all these traditions upon bad information.  We now live in a more enlightened age.  It's time that we were brave enough to recognise what is immoral rather than kowtowing to something just because the majority is currently going along with it.  But history shows that only a minority stand up for what's right whereas the majority just go along with whatever they are told.