What do you believe is moral?

[Elwar]

is a anarchistic world the "cost" of murder/rape/whatever would be significantly lower and people would do it more often.

This is an anarchist world of survival of the fittest. It just so happens that groups have formed to protect their own interests. These groups with the most amount of power are able to control those with less power. Those with less power can either try to fight that power which they do not stand a chance, or they can just play along under the rules of those with the power.

[Elwar]

"Theft" is not the same concept as "taxation", no matter how constipated you get from wanting it to be the same thing.

And yet the action is the same.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

[crumbs]

"Theft" is not the same concept as "taxation", no matter how constipated you get from wanting it to be the same thing.

And yet the action is the same.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

I'll chime in with more folksy wisdom:  a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse.  Belch.

[Rassah]

I guess it could be rephrased to
1) Is it moral for you to buy something you want from me?
2) Is it moral for me to force you to buy something you want from me?
3) is it moral for me to force you to buy something you don't want from me, even at the point of a gun?
3a) Is it moral for me to decide what you need or want for you, even if what I decide is not something you do want or need?
4) If 1 through 3 is still OK with you, at what point do the decisions someone forces on you become not OK? E.g. forcing you to pay for public school, even if you don't have kids is OK, forcing you to pay to kill people for having different religious beliefs may not be OK. At what point does it become not OK?

[thehun]

I do agree that the way taxation is currently implemented can be considered an outright theft.

But taxes as such could be set in a way that they are not imposed, but rather agreed upon by a (local) community, without central government intervention. For example, all (the majority of) inhabitants of a town could agree that amount X of money is needed to fix the roads, pay the police and firemen, and other expenses which are of common interest. Those who don't agree could simply claim a piece of land somewhere outside of that town and grow/sell their own food, take care of their personal safety, etc without using the town's services. Schools would be paid only by people who actually have children (functioning as cooperatives), and there would be absolutely no need for a bureaucratic monster of pea-counters, regulators, paper movers, etc.

Some people would prefer to pay what is necessary to keep the common services running in order to benefit from the comfort of living in the town, and others would choose to live an autarchic life in the wild without paying a penny to anyone.

Ok, maybe in this utopian fantasyland these contributions couldn't be called taxes any more, but I think the point is clear. It is a robbery when taxes are used to feed the fat bellys of millions of bureaucrats and corrupt politicians, to subsidize otherwise non-competitive companies, etc and all this without any transparent accounting. Unfortunately this is the case pretty much everywhere in the world, and the ruling classes will never want to let go of their privileges and will keep on feeding us that the established system is necessary for maintaining peace and order.

[dancupid]

Morality is not a scientific concept. It's superstition.
If morality was science we could apply it to the behavior of all living organisms, and feel moral outrage every time we get a yeast infection.

Morality is just a human idea - it's not independent of evolutionary forces
As long as our moral position allows us to survive and pass on our genes we will conform to the current standards of the social group we have been born into - as soon as we see a genetic advantage in ignoring moral conventions we will happily commit genocide.
People pay taxes in order to successfully pass on their genes.
Ethics died after Darwin.

[cryto4rig]

*not the U.S. government

[Rassah]

Unless a country closes its borders and tries to prevent people from leaving, taxes pretty much are voluntary, strictly speaking. Even if some people want to "opt out of the system", most people have their whole lives (and their children's lives) set up in such a way that they can't leave without massive upheaval (quit job, sell house/break lease, sell 50k different things, stop 20 different service contracts, notify bank+school+post office, scout out a new place to live and sign more contracts, find a new job...)

Why can't people simply be allowed to voluntarily stop paying taxes, and then not be given any of the things taxes pay for, like police and fire protection, military protection, access to schools or public highways, etc? If some yokle lives on a compound out in the middle of nowhere, surely it can't be that hard for the government to do.

[Elwar]

police and fire protection, military protection, access to schools or public highways,

Whenever people think about what government provides they use these as examples.

Police are paid by property taxes. There are examples of privatized police doing much better than public police.

Fire departments can and are in some places privatized.

Military - the notion that we need a standing army with an armed population ready to fight is a bit of a stretch. We are taught to believe we need one because we are an empirialist nation.

Schools - again property taxes mainly, and also easily privatized.

Roads. We are slaves to public roads that are the third highest cause of death in the US. Also could be privatized.

[thehun]

I do agree that the way taxation is currently implemented can be considered an outright theft.

But taxes as such could be set in a way that they are not imposed, but rather agreed upon by a (local) community, without central government intervention. For example, all (the majority of) inhabitants of a town could agree that amount X of money is needed to fix the roads, pay the police and firemen, and other expenses which are of common interest. Those who don't agree could simply claim a piece of land somewhere outside of that town and grow/sell their own food, take care of their personal safety, etc without using the town's services. Schools would be paid only by people who actually have children (functioning as cooperatives), and there would be absolutely no need for a bureaucratic monster of pea-counters, regulators, paper movers, etc.

Unless a country closes its borders and tries to prevent people from leaving, taxes pretty much are voluntary, strictly speaking. Even if some people want to "opt out of the system", most people have their whole lives (and their children's lives) set up in such a way that they can't leave without massive upheaval (quit job, sell house/break lease, sell 50k different things, stop 20 different service contracts, notify bank+school+post office, scout out a new place to live and sign more contracts, find a new job...)

The voluntarists seem to have a (semi) legitimate point in that even if they're willing to uproot, they still can't escape because all the other countries (that are on the table) also have expensive regimes. However, as the forum's resident Anarchist 'Ktttn' shows, living tax-free does seem possible -- people are just unwilling to reduce their ecological footprint by about 1000 times. They want the same lifestyle but without tax.

Some people would prefer to pay what is necessary to keep the common services running in order to benefit from the comfort of living in the town, and others would choose to live an autarchic life in the wild without paying a penny to anyone.

And some would refuse to pay, refuse to move, and they would complain that they're being oppressed and tyrannised by the evil majority when tax collectors knock at the door.

My point is it shouldn't be established at a country level, but only locally. Every state should allow its citizens to live outside of urban areas and take care of their own needs without being taxed or needing to move to another country. Why should a bureaucrat in Washington decide anything about a town in Idaho, for example? Unfortunately, AFAIK this model just doesn't exist.

And to your second point, dealing with people who want to live in the system and don't want to contribute is as simple as kicking them out until they either pay up or establish themselves outside of the system.

[Fugger]

Unless a country closes its borders and tries to prevent people from leaving, taxes pretty much are voluntary, strictly speaking. Even if some people want to "opt out of the system", most people have their whole lives (and their children's lives) set up in such a way that they can't leave without massive upheaval (quit job, sell house/break lease, sell 50k different things, stop 20 different service contracts, notify bank+school+post office, scout out a new place to live and sign more contracts, find a new job...)

Why can't people simply be allowed to voluntarily stop paying taxes, and then not be given any of the things taxes pay for, like police and fire protection, military protection, access to schools or public highways, etc? If some yokle lives on a compound out in the middle of nowhere, surely it can't be that hard for the government to do.

I think what you would have in that case is a free riding problem. Many people would prefer not to pay taxes and then trying to use some of the services (fire protection, emergency medication etc.) if there it's really necessary for them. So far, the best mechanism I could think of is the 'opt out of the system' by leaving your country if you do not agree with the current system anymore and there is no majority to change it from inside.

[thehun]

Unless a country closes its borders and tries to prevent people from leaving, taxes pretty much are voluntary, strictly speaking. Even if some people want to "opt out of the system", most people have their whole lives (and their children's lives) set up in such a way that they can't leave without massive upheaval (quit job, sell house/break lease, sell 50k different things, stop 20 different service contracts, notify bank+school+post office, scout out a new place to live and sign more contracts, find a new job...)

Why can't people simply be allowed to voluntarily stop paying taxes, and then not be given any of the things taxes pay for, like police and fire protection, military protection, access to schools or public highways, etc? If some yokle lives on a compound out in the middle of nowhere, surely it can't be that hard for the government to do.

I think what you would have in that case is a free riding problem. Many people would prefer not to pay taxes and then trying to use some of the services (fire protection, emergency medication etc.) if there it's really necessary for them. So far, the best mechanism I could think of is the 'opt out of the system' by leaving your country if you do not agree with the current system anymore and there is no majority to change it from inside.

Free riding already exists in today's society. You name it: unemployed, black-market workers, disabled people, professional tax-dodgers... The difference is that you could step out without needing to be disabled/lazy or lie. And there's always a way of dealing with freeloaders; your approach is like saying "why should I open a grocery store if there will be people shoplifting?"

[kokjo]

Police are paid by property taxes. There are examples of privatized police doing much better than public police.

cool, anecdotal evidence ftw!!!
 

[Mota]

Most stupid thread title ever.
the survey is not about the definition of morale, it's about the definition of stealing.
if it was about the definition of morale it would have to be the other way around.

1.If you build a road alone, would it be okay to charge people to use it?
2. If you and a group of people build a road, would it be okay to charge others to use them?
3. If you are elected to build a road and secure it with security forces, would it be okay to charge the people who elected you to do so with it's maintenance cost?
4. If you are the representative of a group of elected people in charge of: roadbuiding, infrastructure building, securing your town and the roads, and protecting you from non elected people charging you for services rendered by yourself, would it be okay to charge the people who voted for them for maintenance cost and a fee for future projects?

repeat as you like.
And even that is not your personal definition of morale; morale is what you personally feel is right, and won't burden your conscience.

[Elwar]

Most stupid thread title ever.
the survey is not about the definition of morale, it's about the definition of stealing.
if it was about the definition of morale it would have to be the other way around.

1.If you build a road alone, would it be okay to charge people to use it?
2. If you and a group of people build a road, would it be okay to charge others to use them?
3. If you are elected to build a road and secure it with security forces, would it be okay to charge the people who elected you to do so with it's maintenance cost?
4. If you are the representative of a group of elected people in charge of: roadbuiding, infrastructure building, securing your town and the roads, and protecting you from non elected people charging you for services rendered by yourself, would it be okay to charge the people who voted for them for maintenance cost and a fee for future projects?

repeat as you like.
And even that is not your personal definition of morale; morale is what you personally feel is right, and won't burden your conscience.

Cool story bro.

And those who do not want to use the road?

[kokjo]

Most stupid thread title ever.
the survey is not about the definition of morale, it's about the definition of stealing.
if it was about the definition of morale it would have to be the other way around.

1.If you build a road alone, would it be okay to charge people to use it?
2. If you and a group of people build a road, would it be okay to charge others to use them?
3. If you are elected to build a road and secure it with security forces, would it be okay to charge the people who elected you to do so with it's maintenance cost?
4. If you are the representative of a group of elected people in charge of: roadbuiding, infrastructure building, securing your town and the roads, and protecting you from non elected people charging you for services rendered by yourself, would it be okay to charge the people who voted for them for maintenance cost and a fee for future projects?

repeat as you like.
And even that is not your personal definition of morale; morale is what you personally feel is right, and won't burden your conscience.

Cool story bro.

And those who do not want to use the road?

and what about that sewer?

[Elwar]

Police are paid by property taxes. There are examples of privatized police doing much better than public police.

cool, anecdotal evidence ftw!!!
 

http://www.policymic.com/articles/44725/this-is-what-budget-cuts-have-done-to-detroit-and-it-s-freaking-awesome

Dr. Benson notes that, for centuries, crime control was almost entirely private and community based. Surveying criminal justice systems around the world, he finds the most successful have always been those that most closely adhere to this old model of “community policing,” in which victim restitution, citizen patrols, and private justice are valued most, while government police forces, prosecutors, courts, and prisons are almost an afterthought.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=35

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin017.pdf

etc..

[Elwar]

Most stupid thread title ever.
the survey is not about the definition of morale, it's about the definition of stealing.
if it was about the definition of morale it would have to be the other way around.

1.If you build a road alone, would it be okay to charge people to use it?
2. If you and a group of people build a road, would it be okay to charge others to use them?
3. If you are elected to build a road and secure it with security forces, would it be okay to charge the people who elected you to do so with it's maintenance cost?
4. If you are the representative of a group of elected people in charge of: roadbuiding, infrastructure building, securing your town and the roads, and protecting you from non elected people charging you for services rendered by yourself, would it be okay to charge the people who voted for them for maintenance cost and a fee for future projects?

repeat as you like.
And even that is not your personal definition of morale; morale is what you personally feel is right, and won't burden your conscience.

Cool story bro.

And those who do not want to use the road?

and what about that sewer?

Septic tank.

[Mota]

Most stupid thread title ever.
the survey is not about the definition of morale, it's about the definition of stealing.
if it was about the definition of morale it would have to be the other way around.

1.If you build a road alone, would it be okay to charge people to use it?
2. If you and a group of people build a road, would it be okay to charge others to use them?
3. If you are elected to build a road and secure it with security forces, would it be okay to charge the people who elected you to do so with it's maintenance cost?
4. If you are the representative of a group of elected people in charge of: roadbuiding, infrastructure building, securing your town and the roads, and protecting you from non elected people charging you for services rendered by yourself, would it be okay to charge the people who voted for them for maintenance cost and a fee for future projects?

repeat as you like.
And even that is not your personal definition of morale; morale is what you personally feel is right, and won't burden your conscience.

Cool story bro.

And those who do not want to use the road?

and what about that sewer?

Septic tank.

I took road tax as it is one of the oldest form of taxes of mankind. You could not go anywhere without them. Have you ever tried to walk 20km without a road of any kind? bear in mind that you couldn't even walk through a forest a few hundred years ago because of undergrowth and the only way to get through was a lumber road...
but hey, maybe you are from america, and don't know the history of the old world...

[Rassah]

I took road tax as it is one of the oldest form of taxes of mankind. You could not go anywhere without them. Have you ever tried to walk 20km without a road of any kind? bear in mind that you couldn't even walk through a forest a few hundred years ago because of undergrowth and the only way to get through was a lumber road...

I think you may be referring to a road toll, not a road tax. As in, only those who used the road paid, not everyone in the country. Besides, we now have many more methods of transportation than just roads.
"Roads?! Where we're going, we won't need roads." -- Doc Brown