Defend Taxation

[myrkul]

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.

[Explodicle]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

[Explodicle]

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.

[myrkul]

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?

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.

[Explodicle]

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?

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. 

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.

[myrkul]

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. 

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?

[finkleshnorts]

@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.

[myrkul]

@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)

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

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

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)?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

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.

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

[Explodicle]

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. 

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?

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

[myrkul]

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).

[Explodicle]

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.

[myrkul]

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?

[Explodicle]

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.

[finkleshnorts]

@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)

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

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

Back to the thinking board...

[FirstAscent]

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.

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

[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?

[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...