Defend Taxation

[FirstAscent]

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.

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.

[nimda]

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...

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

[Dalkore]

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.

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

[FirstAscent]

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...

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

Did you ask the whale?

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

[nimda]

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.

[TheButterZone]

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

[Explodicle]

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.

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.

[nimda]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

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?

[nimda]

Do you reimburse society for them?

[FirstAscent]

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.

[nimda]

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.

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

[FirstAscent]

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.

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[Explodicle]

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.

Then the state can then spend those funds on positive externalities, 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.

[Dalkore]

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.

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

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


Response:
If you used a purely open market based system on essential services you would first institutionalize private and usually profit-seeking interests.  This is hardly in the public good.  Also with the prison example, you may have the tendency to shape laws that lend to more incarcerations because that would benefit your bottom-line.  This is why you might want to take it out of the private market and place it into a public instrument of good or at least justice.  I say "instrument" intentionally because I draw a distinction between a instrument and institution.

Now if we agree it is a essential service that either a person needs right now or can be reasonable demonstrate that having the service ready for them for when is needed is the correct action (you don't want to start a emergency dispatch service the moment your having a heart-attack as an example for 911).  

My question:

My question is being that you see taxation as a use of force that doesn't mesh with your ideology, please describe in some detail this system you would use to get these tasks that a tax would accomplish for a society?

Thank You,
Dalkore

[myrkul]

Response:
If you used a purely open market based system on essential services you would first institutionalize private and usually profit-seeking interests.  This is hardly in the public good.  Also with the prison example, you may have the tendency to shape laws that lend to more incarcerations because that would benefit your bottom-line.  This is why you might want to take it out of the private market and place it into a public instrument of good or at least justice.  I say "instrument" intentionally because I draw a distinction between a instrument and institution.

Now if we agree it is a essential service that either a person needs right now or can be reasonable demonstrate that having the service ready for them for when is needed is the correct action (you don't want to start a emergency dispatch service the moment your having a heart-attack as an example for 911).  

My question:

My question is being that you see taxation as a use of force that doesn't mesh with your ideology, please describe in some detail this system you would use to get these tasks that a tax would accomplish for a society?

Thank You,
Dalkore

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.

[myrkul]

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.

Then the state can then spend those funds on positive externalities, 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.

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.