why do people agree to pay taxes?

[Robert Paulson]

You were born into an unfortunate situation i.e. a society that chose long ago to organise a government and pay taxes. It could have been worse, you could have been born a starving child in Africa or a woman in Afghanistan.

Believe it or not, you have a choice. You can leave. You just need somewhere to go and sufficient motivation to make the move.

or i can help change this place.

[1715204545]

1715204545

[runam0k]

or i can help change this place.

You can try, absolutely, but I'd wager your chances are only very marginally better than the starving child in Africa or the woman in Afghanistan.

[MrBig]

you would not be able to pillage anyone because they would be defended by a whole bunch of private armies who do respect non aggression because wars cost money and its better for business to just settle disputes in an agreed private court.
as long as the majority of military power respects non aggression a minority attacker will not be successful.  
same way as you need 51% of hashing power in bitcoin to consistently attack the network successfully.

the reason those messed up countries don't work is that the majority doesn't follow the non aggression protocol, that's not the case in America.

having multiple privately funded armies sharing power is not exactly anarchy.
because they have to compete for customers the free market will weed out the ineffective non profitable armies and you would be left with very effective protection against any aggression.

I do understand that logic, but it never happens that way. Who would pay the private army? And why on Earth would they work for a living when they can just take everything you own? As far as private courts, what law will they follow other than the laws they make up.
Lastly, there is no law holding you in the U.S. You are free to leave and pursue your liberty in the new Islamic Caliphate or Somalia, or the soon to be liberated Liberia. Once the government there collapses it should be a safe place to raise a family.

You're proposing a system that is run by companies, but the thing is, we're already living in a system run by corporations. They may not come out and state it publicly right now, but that's what it is. The politicians who are in office simply carry out the wishes of their corporate masters. The actual differences between the political parties are negligible in the grand scheme of things.

We'll all probably be citizens of XYZ corporation in the future, instead of this or that country. Heck, most of us are already wage slaves to one corporation or another.
anyone who wants protection against aggression (which is probably everyone) will pay the private army of their choosing.
they would work for a living because the majority of them would not agree to just rob everyone and would uphold the non aggression protocol,
that's pretty much why the current U.S army doesn't just take over the whole country even though they hold all the weapons.
this also shows how in the current situation if the U.S army does decide that it wants to take over it can do so easily because it has the monopoly on military power.
in a true free society no single organization can just take over, because the other honest armies will destroy it, again this scheme relies on the majority military power upholding the protocol, just like bitcoin.

the courts will follow the laws which they make, they will likely ask people to vote for the laws with a referendum or the free market will find some other way to make laws.
no one will pay for the services of a private army that works with a court that makes laws nobody wants, and in any case the laws must be compatible with the non aggression protocol that the private armies are upholding.

[lucasjkr]

I'd suggest to Mr. Paulson that he refer to countries where such experiments are underway. Sudan. Afghanistan, perfect example, had MANY private armies.

I'm sorry. Things that look good on paper rarely work in reality. Saying that the private armies won't attack one another because it'd be a waste, akin to a 51% attack, is nonsense.

Complaining about government waste, when we can vote those guys out, and instead hoping for a collection of private armies to pop up and offer "protection" seems like it'll create the same end result (paying taxes, tribute, protection), just under a different name. And with warlords, the peasants and serfs can't vote them out.

[lucasjkr]

anyone who wants protection against aggression (which is probably everyone) will pay the private army of their choosing.
they would work for a living because the majority of them would not agree to just rob everyone and would uphold the non aggression protocol,
that's pretty much why the current U.S army doesn't just take over the whole country even though they hold all the weapons.
this also shows how in the current situation if the U.S army does decide that it wants to take over it can do so easily because it has the monopoly on military power.
in a true free society no single organization can just take over, because the other honest armies will destroy it, again this scheme relies on the majority military power upholding the protocol, just like bitcoin.

the courts will follow the laws which they make, they will likely ask people to vote for the laws with a referendum or the free market will find some other way to make laws.
no one will pay for the services of a private army that works with a court that makes laws nobody wants, and in any case the laws must be compatible with the non aggression protocol that the private armies are upholding.

* So, instead of paying taxes, we pay protection money?

* Why do you assume these armies would uphold the "non aggression protocol"?

* "In a true free society..." Again, I refer to afghanistan - you had tons of private armies, and the Taliban came through, swept up public support and decimated most of those private armies.

* "the courts will follow the laws.... will likely ask people to vote..." Again, not reality based. This world is usually one where "he who has the guns makes the laws"; In a scenario that you're creating, I'd assume the armed protectorate would make the laws, not let the people vote for such things.

* "no one will pay of the services of a private army that works with a court making laws nobody wants" - again, ignoring the fact that the private army has the guns and therefore can extract their pay from you whether you like it or not. In fact, this whole scenario you're creating seems to mirror, exactly, the scenario you claim to deplore so much.

* "laws must be compatible with the non aggression protocol that the private armies are upholding."  - what insures that these private armies are enforcing a non-aggression protocol? leap of faith?

No thank you. Any of that.

[Robert Paulson]

anyone who wants protection against aggression (which is probably everyone) will pay the private army of their choosing.
they would work for a living because the majority of them would not agree to just rob everyone and would uphold the non aggression protocol,
that's pretty much why the current U.S army doesn't just take over the whole country even though they hold all the weapons.
this also shows how in the current situation if the U.S army does decide that it wants to take over it can do so easily because it has the monopoly on military power.
in a true free society no single organization can just take over, because the other honest armies will destroy it, again this scheme relies on the majority military power upholding the protocol, just like bitcoin.

the courts will follow the laws which they make, they will likely ask people to vote for the laws with a referendum or the free market will find some other way to make laws.
no one will pay for the services of a private army that works with a court that makes laws nobody wants, and in any case the laws must be compatible with the non aggression protocol that the private armies are upholding.

* So, instead of paying taxes, we pay protection money?

* Why do you assume these armies would uphold the "non aggression protocol"?

* "In a true free society..." Again, I refer to afghanistan - you had tons of private armies, and the Taliban came through, swept up public support and decimated most of those private armies.

* "the courts will follow the laws.... will likely ask people to vote..." Again, not reality based. This world is usually one where "he who has the guns makes the laws"; In a scenario that you're creating, I'd assume the armed protectorate would make the laws, not let the people vote for such things.

* "no one will pay of the services of a private army that works with a court making laws nobody wants" - again, ignoring the fact that the private army has the guns and therefore can extract their pay from you whether you like it or not. In fact, this whole scenario you're creating seems to mirror, exactly, the scenario you claim to deplore so much.

* "laws must be compatible with the non aggression protocol that the private armies are upholding."  - what insures that these private armies are enforcing a non-aggression protocol? leap of faith?

No thank you. Any of that.

yes, you pay protection money, there will always be a minority of bad people and taking care of them requires resources,
you don't have to hire the services of a protection army but then you'll have to provide it for yourself.

i assume the majority will uphold the non aggression protocol because armies are already doing it.
every western country today has an army that is capable of taking over the country, but they don't do it, they play by the rules, so this works in practice.

Afghanistan never had private armies, it was a British colony and then in 1919 became a monarchy which became a democracy in 1964 and then in 1978 the communists grabbed power, the Soviet Union and America had a proxy war between them using Afghanistan as a battle field.
in 1992 the communist rule fell and a civil war started which the Taliban won.
it was always a violent and aggressive society, it never succeeded because of that, the majority of people there did not follow the non aggression principle.

why doesn't the army in any of the western countries simply makes the laws? after all they hold all the weapons and all the power and yet even with their monopoly on power people get to vote.
why do you assume that in a far better situation where no one has the monopoly on power any single private army will be able to dictate the laws?

today a single army has all the guns and can extract whatever it wants from anyone, and yet it doesn't do that and upholds non aggression against the chosen government and the people in general,
why do you assume that in a situation where there is no single controlling army suddenly no one is civilized anymore and simply starts to rob everyone?

[RodeoX]

As a side note... It's not that I support what my government does with the taxes they collect from me. I think most of it gets wasted at best. But that is a different problem than taxes themselves. Whether you feel free or not, these are the safest times in all of human history. Never have you been able to think that you might live to be 70. My friends in Washington state can smoke weed, carry a gun, curse any god, have sex with who they want, etc. That is basically unheard of in history.

[TheButterZone]

Because nuclear weapons, drones, and tanks.

[Morecoin Freeman]

Because it is the polite thing to do.

[Robert Paulson]

As a side note... It's not that I support what my government does with the taxes they collect from me. I think most of it gets wasted at best. But that is a different problem than taxes themselves. Whether you feel free or not, these are the safest times in all of human history. Never have you been able to think that you might live to be 70. My friends in Washington state can smoke weed, carry a gun, curse any god, have sex with who they want, etc. That is basically unheard of in history.

and its all possible because we always said we could do better and get more freedom.
if the thirteen American colonies just accepted the fact they have to pay taxes to the British king none of this would come to be.
and today is no different, we can do better, we can get rid of the government completely and achieve a level of freedom unseen since the dawn of civilization.

bitcoin decentralizes money, we must also decentralize military power.
and with that centuries of institutionalized robbery called taxation will end.

[troy112]

As a side note... It's not that I support what my government does with the taxes they collect from me. I think most of it gets wasted at best. But that is a different problem than taxes themselves. Whether you feel free or not, these are the safest times in all of human history. Never have you been able to think that you might live to be 70. My friends in Washington state can smoke weed, carry a gun, curse any god, have sex with who they want, etc. That is basically unheard of in history.

Really agree with you... and yes taxes are necessary, how they are being spent that's the main problem.

[DhaniBoy]

tax on the principle of the people, by the people and for the people, the tax should be used for the greatest benefit of the people, taxes are usually used for the construction of roads, government buildings, public facilities, etc., sometimes there is a single person who embezzles tax taxes from big companies who do not want to pay taxes ... hopefully the funds provided to pay taxes is not the case of fraud and embezzlement ... 

[tpiardi]

States uses violence to force you to... that simple

[coindate]

What you described happennd again and again in history

[pattu1]

If you don't want to pay taxes, you can always renounce your citizenship and move out. 

[MrBig]

If you don't want to pay taxes, you can always renounce your citizenship and move out. 

I'm not American, but I thought that Americans have to pay taxes even if they're not living there. I could be wrong though, it was something I heard once I think.

[TheButterZone]

If you don't want to pay taxes, you can always renounce your citizenship and move out. 

And pay another fucking tax http://news.yahoo.com/renouncing-u-s--citizenship-is-about-to-get-a-lot-more-expensive-150405883.html

[Robert Paulson]

If you don't want to pay taxes, you can always renounce your citizenship and move out. 

And pay another fucking tax http://news.yahoo.com/renouncing-u-s--citizenship-is-about-to-get-a-lot-more-expensive-150405883.html

when more slaves will try to leave that tax is going to get alot higher.

[scarsbergholden]

As a side note... It's not that I support what my government does with the taxes they collect from me. I think most of it gets wasted at best. But that is a different problem than taxes themselves. Whether you feel free or not, these are the safest times in all of human history. Never have you been able to think that you might live to be 70. My friends in Washington state can smoke weed, carry a gun, curse any god, have sex with who they want, etc. That is basically unheard of in history.

and its all possible because we always said we could do better and get more freedom.
if the thirteen American colonies just accepted the fact they have to pay taxes to the British king none of this would come to be.
and today is no different, we can do better, we can get rid of the government completely and achieve a level of freedom unseen since the dawn of civilization.

bitcoin decentralizes money, we must also decentralize military power.
and with that centuries of institutionalized robbery called taxation will end.

Are you crazy? It is very possible to attack bitcoin in a number of ways. Bitcoin is not attacked because it would not make economic sense to do so.

When countries use their military, the economics are not taken into consideration as much as the loser of a military conflict generally will no longer exist as an independent state. This would mean that someone could attack "miliartycoin" in the same ways that bitcoin can be attacked however the attacker would not care about the economics of such attack

[pattu1]

If you don't want to pay taxes, you can always renounce your citizenship and move out. 

I'm not American, but I thought that Americans have to pay taxes even if they're not living there. I could be wrong though, it was something I heard once I think.

When you renounce your citizenship, you are no longer American.