# Is there a way to maintain a government without taxes? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 5, 2005, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505 "2005-02-05T08:33:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2005, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/81 "2005-02-09T15:20:44Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > No, my federal tax number was exactly accurate, as the link to the official United States IRS tax table for the year shows. What was shown was that, _assuming_ your hypothetical family wins a coin toss, it _might_ qualify for a reduction in taxes ? _that only came about this year by a fluke in the tax law_. Your claiming that as validation for your argument is reminiscent of Michael Jackon accepting a nonexistent award for Artist of the Millennium. No your tax numbers are not correct you did not factor in any deductions or tax credits. The child credit alone is 1000 dollars per child. They get a 9,700 deduction for being married and filing jointly. Which gives me a raw number of 32709 which by your table gives a raw tax of 4201. Subtracting the child credit they pay 2201. That still seems high to me perhaps one of our more knowledgable tax dopers can set me straight. > **[Tax Tip: Choose best deduction method for your tax situation](https://www.bankrate.com/finance/money-guides/pick-deduction-option-that-cuts-taxes.aspx)** > > Deductions reduce your taxable income. Here’s how to determine whether the standard or itemized approach will help you get the smallest tax bill. [http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/mww/childtaxcredit.asp](http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/mww/childtaxcredit.asp) > [@Liberal](#): > > I gave you a link to the official State of Oregon Department of Revenue, which showed what families actually paid in taxes, based on income. First off you gave me a link to a page with 4 huge pdfs on it. I hardly call that citing a number. But I slogged through it and found what the median family of 4 paid in 1998 and it was 1467. So again your number is just plain wrong. > [@Liberal](#): > > What? I selected Oregon at random for _state_ tax. (It was in the middle of the page on Google.) If you’re going to give your family every advantage, why don’t you put them in Alaska, working on subsidized oil production? Make the mother retarded, and dependent on the husband as head of household. Make the two children Siamese twins, receiving free medical care from a Norwegian Nobel laureat. You took huge liberties with your numbers and I am showing your errors. I am not entirely sure how I am giving this family every advantage in your situation as you are the one that chose it. You chose a state with no sales tax so their state income tax is higher to compensate. Heck if you chose Florida there would be no state income tax at all. It is also duly noted that you don’t seem to be striving for accuracy. > [@Liberal](#): > > No it doesn’t. I already computed those taxes for you, with a link to the official Social Security Administration website. Your figure is too high for their income. You are correct. > [@Liberal](#): > > It is? Where? Oregon? Oregon has no individual personal property tax. But its property tax for businesses is “81.7% of its initial market value for industrial property and 71.87% for commercial property” ([Cite](http://www.lanemetro.com/business/tax_profile.html).) Isn’t that swell but what does it have to do with this familiy’s tax burden? Not to mention that isn’t its tax rate rather how the value of the property is calculated for local taxes. > [@Liberal](#): > > So the difference by your mysterious calculations is about a thousand dollars. After a temporary fluke in the federal tax law. After pretending they don’t have to pay any of the dozens of other taxes that homeowners pay in my list above. Your case is extremely weak. The marriage deduction and child credits aren’t temporary flukes they have been around for a while. > [@Liberal](#): > > You’re not sure whether they are paying a tax for fire and police? And you expect me to take your projections seriously? O.K. how much do you estimate that the family will save by the fire department being privitized. Same for the police but remember our family already paid for state police and the FBI. > [@Liberal](#): > > You mean benefits like higher prices due to frivolous regulation and layer upon layer of marked-up tax expense by the businesses they buy from? Give me some numbers. > [@Liberal](#): > > I estimate that the fee that Libertarian government would charge to defend your rights in a nation state the size of the US would be about $1,359.72 per year. And pray tell where did you get this number from and what services does it include. Remember that our family will need to pay for all of the services they currently get to make it a even comparison. From this latest round of adjustment I get that our family is still approximately $3000 ahead with the full benefits of the Federal and State governments including a safety net that is non existant in Libertaria. Let me ask you again. Why do you think the average family would be better off in Libertaria than a state with a larger welfare program? ---
**Author:** ![Stonebow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Stonebow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stonebow)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2005, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/82 "2005-02-09T15:28:56Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > It pretty much depends on what you mean by “work”. If you mean achieving a particular end, it is hard to say. Free people will do what free people will do. And libertarian government is concerned, not with the end, but with the means — suppressing coercion. All I can tell you is that a libertarian government will not conduct diplomacy. Its only role is to secure the rights and property of its citizens. Its citizens, on the other hand, are free to trade, negotiate, and conduct diplomacy with anyone they wish. By ‘work’ I mean ‘maintain sovereignty over their territory.’ Your hypothetical seems to assume a lot out of human nature that I’d not want to count on. How do you defend youself from encroachment? We’ve not established any way to guarantee national defense (f you want to concede a tax to establish this, as is a common libertarian position, I cede the point) And if the state has no ability to engage in diplomacy, why should other countries recognize it as a nation? And failing all else, why wouldn’t someone annex this loose confederation and then impose their will on the inhabitants? You also seem to underestimate the ability of diplomacy to head off military action. the reason states can negotiate is because a state can speak for all of its people and enforce treaties, etc. from within. Without that guarantee, who would want to deal with you? The point I am trying to make is that changing the philosophy of one group of people will not be enough. You also need to change the attitude of everyone else so that they respect your choice. At this point, I see no reason why they should, other than an appeal to what is ethical. That won’t take you far in a discussion of national self-interest. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2005, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/83 "2005-02-09T15:52:28Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > …All I can tell you is that a libertarian government will not conduct diplomacy. Its only role is to secure the rights and property of its citizens. Its citizens, on the other hand, are free to trade, negotiate, and conduct diplomacy with anyone they wish. I don’t understand that. How do you define “diplomacy”? I understand that a lib government wouldn’t get involved in trade issues, but there is more to diplomacy than traded, no? Are you saying that a lib government would not have a military and would not defend a country against invaders? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2005, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/84 "2005-02-09T15:58:53Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > If fires were more common, there would probably be a lot fewer free riders as well. I only mention this because you can’t consider a situation like this statically-- ie, you can’t change one variable and assume all other variables stay the same. > > I’ve always thought the problem with libertarianism is not the free riders-- they tend to suffer for their non-participation, unlike in socialism where they make out well. The “problem” is that people don’t want absolute freedom if it means they can’t lay claim to other people’s property if they feel they need to. I put “problem” in quotes, because that seems to be a fundamental part of human nature, and I’ve never been able to accept the idea that a system is good, it’s just people who are bad. The system needs to serve the people, and if that system requires a change in human nature, then the system is no good. Many people will say they want to be completely in charge of their own destiny, but as soon they encounter some difficulty, they want the rest of society to be forced to help them overcome it. > > Personally, I’ve always look at libertarianism as a direction to move towards rather than a specific goal that we should try to achieve. As much as I’d like our system to be much closer to a libertarian one, I’d be more than willing to reverse course when movement in that direction leads to a breakdown in civil society. Why should we try it though? We have a good amount of evidence that unbridled capitalism leads to horrible conditions for the poor. We also have evidence that a capitalistic country with a large welfare program gives the best quality of life. Your portion about humane nature struck me similar to the communists argument. The communists argument was that humans are inherently good and it is the system that corrupts them. By thier logic if every country instituted a communist government then the system will stop corrupting people. Eventually national governments would dissappear and we would all live happily together. Unfortunately this relys on a faulty premise that humans are inherently good. Heck look at the Pit and you will see numerous examples of the evil acts of humans. That doesn’t even include the countless wars, murders and robberies throughout history. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2005, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/85 "2005-02-09T16:21:18Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Why should we try it though? We have a good amount of evidence that unbridled capitalism leads to horrible conditions for the poor. We also have evidence that a capitalistic country with a large welfare program gives the best quality of life. Actually, we don’t. We have evidence that governments in cahoots with big business leads to horrible conditions for the poor. We’ve been down this road many times before-- there has never been a country that had even close to a true Libertarian style government. A libertarian government does not grant special favors to business, nor does it prevent workers from organizing. The labor movement is an integral part of the free market, not something outside the market imposed on it. Workers organizing and negotiating wages and working conditions is as much a part of the free market as is the business creation process. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2005, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/86 "2005-02-09T16:26:27Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > **John Mace:** > I think **treis’s** point is that something need not be initiated by other individuals in order properly to be called coercion. We are coerced into action, as he says, by virtue of being human. No one, for example, can choose not to eat. So a political/social context that is predicated on the prevention of coercion that doesn’t address _this_ type of coercion is proferring an insufficiently comprehensive “solution” – and will, in my opinion, be ridden with the kind of baseline inequities I talk about in this thread: [Libertarianism: The Baseline Problem](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=141526). Libertarian philosophy borrows the term “coercion” from the general vocabulary and assigns it the specific meaning of force or deception that is initiated by human agents in the form of a praxis. (Praxis is a term borrowed by Austrian economists to mean an action that is both voluntary and volitional — smoking is a praxis, but breathing is not.) Therefore, accidents of birth, forces of nature, laws of physics, rules of biology, that sort of thing — those do not constitute coercion in the libertarian sense. If you have to make a turn because there is no road ahead of you, that is not coercion in the sense we use the term. But if you have to make a turn because a man is holding a gun to your head and tells you to turn, that is coercion the way we mean it. I believe that any protest about using the term in a specialized way would be silly, given that so many disciplines do exactly that. It is a practice that allows us to call the thing beside our keyboard a “mouse”. Many disciplines routinely borrow jargon from the general vocabulary in order to discuss things, rather than make up new words. If, for example, we are discussing Kant, we might use the term “phenomenon”. And we would not mean “[an] unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel”. Instead, we would mean an aspect of reality — specifically, the way reality appears to us as opposed to the way it really is. Physics, as another example, uses the word force to mean specifically mass times acceleration. Law (as in “the force of law”) uses the term a different way. And even baseball has borrowed the term (“a force play”). ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2005, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/87 "2005-02-09T16:28:57Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I appreciate the clarification on the father and son, a distinction which my source, [The Story of the Royal Martian Constabulary](http://www.heliograph.com/trmgs/trmgs2/rmc.shtml), did not make. (It also spelled the name “Peal”.) So, on that detail, I stand corrected. However, even your own source says that he was “[confronted] with political objections and fears of potential abuse”. It was not a popular move. Unless my other sources are in error, it didn’t even have teeth — i.e., no provisions for enforcement. There is nothing wrong with citizens working through their government to effect change. [Ron Paul](http://www.house.gov/paul/) is a libertarian who is doing exactly that, serving in Congress under a Republican ticket (because of onerous ballot access laws) in order to work for freedom. But citizens, like Martin Luther King, Jr, have also worked outside government, mainly because they had to. They lacked the political clout to break into the system. Well, my main point was that the reforms which you credited to Peel and not to Parliament were in fact brought about by Parliament, of which Peel was a senior member. Fears of abuse by the police (or any other body with the right to wield force) are, up to a point, perfectly rational so it’s not surprising that they were raised in objection to the first police force. The political objections stemmed from a belief that giving the government the means to enforce its laws meant surrendering liberty. On a general note, it’s no surprise that there was opposition to Peel within Parliament, much as there was opposition without. Parliament - government even - should reflect the beliefs of the people it claims to govern. Had the entirety of Parliament rubber-stamped Peel’s proposals, it could hardly claim to be representing the people, considering that (for example) many (generally wealthier) Britons believed that making children as young as six work for more than 12 hours a day was shrewd business practice. So there was a debate, both sides had their say, and in the end Parliament (as a whole, but not unanimously) passed the Factory Act. To say that those opposed or indifferent to the Act are evidence of “Parliament not giving a rat’s ass” while those who proposed, supported and voted for the legislation were “citizens working through government” strikes me as an invidious distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2005, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/88 "2005-02-09T17:11:49Z")
> [@treis](#): > > No your tax numbers are not correct you did not factor in any deductions or tax credits. The child credit alone is 1000 dollars per child. > > They get a 9,700 deduction for being married and filing jointly. Which gives me a raw number of 32709 which by your table gives a raw tax of 4201. Subtracting the child credit they pay 2201. That still seems high to me perhaps one of our more knowledgable tax dopers can set me straight. You’re doing a pretty good job shilling for Bush’s tax plans, but once again you assign your hapless family that lives everywhere the most fortuitous possible circumstance. You are supposing, for example, that the father owes no child support, and that neither child turned 17 during the taxable year. And incidentally, you’ll have to revamp your example next year, because the credit amount takes a dive. > [@](#): > > First off you gave me a link to a page with 4 huge pdfs on it. I hardly call that citing a number. But I slogged through it and found what the median family of 4 paid in 1998 and it was 1467. So again your number is just plain wrong. Well, I guess we’ll just have to call H&R block. The very fact that you and I are fiddling around with this, offering off-setting cites, with people jumping in to remind us of various and sundry exceptions and nuances is testament to the sheer idiocy of the entire system. The fact is that your family _might_ qualify for _some_ of the tax breaks, but you’d better make the dad a tax attorney so that they’ll know how to do it. After all, you haven’t figured in their hiring someone to do their taxes for them. > [@](#): > > You took huge liberties with your numbers and I am showing your errors. I am not entirely sure how I am giving this family every advantage in your situation as you are the one that chose it. You chose a state with no sales tax so their state income tax is higher to compensate. Heck if you chose Florida there would be no state income tax at all. It is also duly noted that you don’t seem to be striving for accuracy. That’s nonsense. Both our numbers are being revised faster than we can type them out. And even some of the right ones will be wrong next year and were wrong last year. I could have chosen Alabama, with possibly the most onerous tax burden on the poor of any state. > [@](#): > > You are correct. Well, it is a wonder. > [@](#): > > Isn’t that swell but what does it have to do with this familiy’s tax burden? Because they have to _buy_ things. The alleged “no sales tax” is hidden in the cost of goods for things sold in their state. All the state has done is rob them of their itemization on their sales receipt. If you owned a store in Oregon with a 70% property tax, how would you stay in business if you did not pass that cost along? Oregon has a capitol building and everything. They do not use slave labor to keep the bureaucracy going. > [@](#): > > Not to mention that isn’t its tax rate rather how the value of the property is calculated for local taxes. But the consumers have to pay it all the same. It is a hidden tax. > [@](#): > > The marriage deduction and child credits aren’t temporary flukes they have been around for a while. The marriage deduction? Do you mean the marriage _penalty_? According to June O’Neill, who testified before Congress as Director of the Congressional Budget Office in 1998, the government attempts to reconcile three principles that conflict: (1) treating married couples with equal income equally, (2) neutralizing marital status, and (3) taxing household income progressively. O’Neill said the task is impossible. “[The] incompatibility of progressive rates, equal treatment of married couples, and marriage neutrality results in a continuing tension within the tax code.” > [@](#): > > O.K. how much do you estimate that the family will save by the fire department being privitized. Same for the police but remember our family already paid for state police and the FBI. I already gave that information in this thread. Find it. > [@](#): > > Give me some numbers. $1.00, $1.33, $1.77, $2.37, $3.16. > [@](#): > > And pray tell where did you get this number from and what services does it include. Remember that our family will need to pay for all of the services they currently get to make it a even comparison. Nonsense. They aren’t just paying for services they get; they’re paying for services they never heard of, like the Family Caregiver Alliance, or services they’ll never receive, like haircuts for Senators. I got the number by dividing the budget of the Defense Department by the population of the United States. > [@](#): > > From this latest round of adjustment I get that our family is still approximately $3000 ahead with the full benefits of the Federal and State governments including a safety net that is non existant in Libertaria. A safety net? You _used up_ the safety net. They got what they got. To qualify for more, you have to make them vulnerable somehow, like take away their incredible luck and omniscience. They can jump in the net if you let them, say, quit work or something. > [@](#): > > Let me ask you again. Why do you think the average family would be better off in Libertaria than a state with a larger welfare program? And let me ask you again, what do you mean by an average family? I think my family is pretty average, and we’d prefer to live in Libertaria. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/89 "2005-02-09T17:17:43Z")
> [@amrussell](#): > > Well, my main point was that the reforms which you credited to Peel and not to Parliament were in fact brought about by Parliament, of which Peel was a senior member. Very well. I won’t fight you on the nuance between a man who happens to be a member of Parliament and the Parliament as a whole. It is irrelevant anyway to the point I was making, which is that throughout history, there have been innumerable instances of people having to force government to do the right thing. My American civil rights example, for instances, still stands. > [@](#): > > Fears of abuse by the police (or any other body with the right to wield force) are, up to a point, perfectly rational so it’s not surprising that they were raised in objection to the first police force. The political objections stemmed from a belief that giving the government the means to enforce its laws meant surrendering liberty. Agreed. But doesn’t that fly in the face of Treis’s assertion that people prefer socialism over liberty? > [@](#): > > On a general note, it’s no surprise that there was opposition to Peel within Parliament, much as there was opposition without. Parliament - government even - should reflect the beliefs of the people it claims to govern. Had the entirety of Parliament rubber-stamped Peel’s proposals, it could hardly claim to be representing the people, considering that (for example) many (generally wealthier) Britons believed that making children as young as six work for more than 12 hours a day was shrewd business practice. So there was a debate, both sides had their say, and in the end Parliament (as a whole, but not unanimously) passed the Factory Act. To say that those opposed or indifferent to the Act are evidence of “Parliament not giving a rat’s ass” while those who proposed, supported and voted for the legislation were “citizens working through government” strikes me as an invidious distinction. Maybe so. But a principle that held children to be incapable of giving meaningful consent would have solved the whole issue. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2005, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/90 "2005-02-09T17:54:57Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > You’re doing a pretty good job shilling for Bush’s tax plans, but once again you assign your hapless family that lives everywhere the most fortuitous possible circumstance. You are supposing, for example, that the father owes no child support, and that neither child turned 17 during the taxable year. And incidentally, you’ll have to revamp your example next year, because the credit amount takes a dive. I assumed all the same information for the family in Libertaria. > [@Liberal](#): > > Well, I guess we’ll just have to call H&R block. The very fact that you and I are fiddling around with this, offering off-setting cites, with people jumping in to remind us of various and sundry exceptions and nuances is testament to the sheer idiocy of the entire system. The fact is that your family _might_ qualify for _some_ of the tax breaks, but you’d better make the dad a tax attorney so that they’ll know how to do it. After all, you haven’t figured in their hiring someone to do their taxes for them. There is no might or some about it. Every family in America gets a child credit and a deduction for being married. And the reason we are fiddling around with cites is becuase only one of us is striving for an honest accurate portrayal. > [@Liberal](#): > > Because they have to _buy_ things. The alleged “no sales tax” is hidden in the cost of goods for things sold in their state. All the state has done is rob them of their itemization on their sales receipt. If you owned a store in Oregon with a 70% property tax, how would you stay in business if you did not pass that cost along? Oregon has a capitol building and everything. They do not use slave labor to keep the bureaucracy going. First off there is no 70% property tax. Second off all property tax goes to local government. Third the state pays for these things through the income tax which I added in. Lastly they can afford what they need even with this ‘hidden tax’. > [@Liberal](#): > > I already gave that information in this thread. Find it. Are you referring to the amount you pay for a volunteer fire department? To which you replied you paid 20-40$ a year but you “don’t know how the initial trucks were bought.” I also didn’t see anything in there about how much the Police department would cost. > [@Liberal](#): > > The marriage deduction? Do you mean the marriage _penalty_? According to June O’Neill, who testified before Congress as Director of the Congressional Budget Office in 1998, the government attempts to reconcile three principles that conflict: (1) treating married couples with equal income equally, (2) neutralizing marital status, and (3) taxing household income progressively. O’Neill said the task is impossible. “[The] incompatibility of progressive rates, equal treatment of married couples, and marriage neutrality results in a continuing tension within the tax code.” No I mean the amount you get to deduct from your taxable amount becuase you are married. I am not interested in debating what our tax policy should be. I am interested in looking at what our current tax policy is and whether an average family is better off living under it or in Libertaria. > [@Liberal](#): > > $1.00, $1.33, $1.77, $2.37, $3.16. What a brilliant debating tactic when asked for numbers backing up your statement you come back with a smart ass response. Do you have any evidence at all for your statements? > [@Liberal](#): > > A safety net? You _used up_ the safety net. They got what they got. To qualify for more, you have to make them vulnerable somehow, like take away their incredible luck and omniscience. They can jump in the net if you let them, say, quit work or something. What safety net are they using? They are paying for their medical care, food and shelter. I am saying that is availible for them if they need it. For example if the father can’t work anymore they can get food stamps and housing assistance as opposed to Libertaria where they would presumably just starve to death. > [@Liberal](#): > > I got the number by dividing the budget of the Defense Department by the population of the United States. Are 1 month olds are responsible for paying now? Or is it their family? Becuase if it is the family you just knocked their payment to Libertaria up to 5200 which is about what they currently pay in taxes. Not to mention you didn’t include any money for the judicial system or the police. > [@Liberal](#): > > And let me ask you again, what do you mean by an average family? I think my family is pretty average, and we’d prefer to live in Libertaria. I mean a family earning an average income (which you are not even close to) are they better off in Libertaria? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2005, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/91 "2005-02-09T18:09:53Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Actually, we don’t. We have evidence that governments in cahoots with big business leads to horrible conditions for the poor. We’ve been down this road many times before-- there has never been a country that had even close to a true Libertarian style government. Yes but it still was the big businesses that were paying a pittance for dangerous work. > [@John Mace](#): > > A libertarian government does not grant special favors to business, nor does it prevent workers from organizing. The labor movement is an integral part of the free market, not something outside the market imposed on it. Workers organizing and negotiating wages and working conditions is as much a part of the free market as is the business creation process. Yes but fledgling unions are easily crushed by businesses. I would argue that the reason we have so many unions is that they are protected by law. [Here](http://www.iuoe701.com/pages/organizing.html) is a list of 35 things employers can not do. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/92 "2005-02-09T18:46:33Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I assumed all the same information for the family in Libertaria. Well then, that’s just crazy. That’s like assuming the same information for a family in Cuba and a family in Miami. The Libertarian family is not constrained by the endless bureaucratic coercion that haunts the American family from the time they wake up until the time they go to sleep. (Do you have any idea how many regulations govern the manufacture of pillows?) Nor do they fear the coercion of neighbors and businesses. A family of four in Libertaria that makes only the equivalent of forty grand a year would be considered bottom of the barrel dirt poor. > [@](#): > > There is no might or some about it. Every family in America gets a child credit and a deduction for being married. Your lack of precision is daunting in its sheer ubiquity. They might qualify — _qualify_ — for it if they meet certain criteria with respect to their relationship with the children, the children’s ages, the father’s status with respect to prior children, and so forth. But qualifying and getting are two different things. If they fail to take advantage of the government loot, government will not offer it to them. It is not ensuring their rights, but merely posting their privileges and leaving them to find the means and wherewithall to take advantage of it. > [@](#): > > And the reason we are fiddling around with cites is becuase only one of us is striving for an honest accurate portrayal. Agreed. > [@](#): > > First off there is no 70% property tax. Second off all property tax goes to local government. Third the state pays for these things through the income tax which I added in. Lastly they can afford what they need even with this ‘hidden tax’. Well, of course they can. It’s a magical family. > [@](#): > > Are you referring to the amount you pay for a volunteer fire department? Yes, and I compared it with a friend from the city. > [@](#): > > To which you replied you paid 20-40$ a year but you “don’t know how the initial trucks were bought.” I also didn’t see anything in there about how much the Police department would cost. It was $20-$50. The police would be included in the fee paid to government, except that the concept would be quite different. In your system, police are not required to protect citizens or even respond to calls. Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981), in the D.C. Court of Appeals, held that “official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection . . . this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen”. And Bowers v. DeVito (686 F. 2d 616, 1982), in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, said that “(T)here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.” > [@](#): > > No I mean the amount you get to deduct from your taxable amount becuase you are married. I am not interested in debating what our tax policy should be. I am interested in looking at what our current tax policy is and whether an average family is better off living under it or in Libertaria. Well then, why didn’t you say so? They’re better off living in Libertaria. > [@](#): > > What a brilliant debating tactic when asked for numbers backing up your statement you come back with a smart ass response. Do you have any evidence at all for your statements? The numbers hold a simple pattern for the discerning eye. It is a dollar marked up 25% five times. Assuming (generously) that some good or service with a dollar base-tax exchanges hands five times between its conception and your consumption, that’s how much just a dollar becomes. That price inflation does not occur in Libertaria. > [@](#): > > What safety net are they using? They are paying for their medical care, food and shelter. I am saying that is availible for them if they need it. For example if the father can’t work anymore they can get food stamps and housing assistance as opposed to Libertaria where they would presumably just starve to death. Why do you make such presumptions? I’ll bet you that I got my food faster from the Crisis Assistance Ministry than I would have from the four-eyed bitch at the welfare office, who hardly looked up at me the entire time and marked me down as the wrong race before she rejected me. Why would there not be charity and philanthropy in Libertaria? > [@](#): > > Are 1 month olds are responsible for paying now? Or is it their family? Becuase if it is the family you just knocked their payment to Libertaria up to 5200 which is about what they currently pay in taxes. Not to mention you didn’t include any money for the judicial system or the police. One-month-olds are incapable of giving meaningful consent, and therefore cannot be governed. Their rights are accrued as nonconsenting parties to a unary contract. There is no judicial system, but rather a system of arbitration. And the police is quite a different thing as well. There is no ongoing legislation of any kind. > [@](#): > > I mean a family earning an average income (which you are not even close to) are they better off in Libertaria? I don’t know why a family earning an average income would be called an average family. I guess the Addam’s family could be called average if they made the right amount. Anyway, they’d be better off in Libertaria, where goods and services are less expensive, of higher quality, and more readily available. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2005, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/93 "2005-02-09T18:47:41Z")
> [@treis](#): > > [Here](http://www.iuoe701.com/pages/organizing.html) is a list of 35 things employers can not do. Yeah, but it’s the 36th one that’ll kill you. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2005, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/94 "2005-02-09T19:15:47Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Well then, that’s just crazy. That’s like assuming the same information for a family in Cuba and a family in Miami. The Libertarian family is not constrained by the endless bureaucratic coercion that haunts the American family from the time they wake up until the time they go to sleep. (Do you have any idea how many regulations govern the manufacture of pillows?) Nor do they fear the coercion of neighbors and businesses. A family of four in Libertaria that makes only the equivalent of forty grand a year would be considered bottom of the barrel dirt poor. What you are saying is that the endless bureaucratic coercion drives wages down to roughly 25% percent of what they should be? What evidence do you have to back this up with? > [@Liberal](#): > > It was $20-$50. The police would be included in the fee paid to government, except that the concept would be quite different. Then why did you set the fee at the DoD’s budget divided by the population? > [@Liberal](#): > > Why do you make such presumptions? I’ll bet you that I got my food faster from the Crisis Assistance Ministry than I would have from the four-eyed bitch at the welfare office, who hardly looked up at me the entire time and marked me down as the wrong race before she rejected me. Why would there not be charity and philanthropy in Libertaria? Why is there not charity and philanthropy in America? We have people that go hungry, are homeless and don’t have access to medical care. Why would people in Libertaria start giving while in America they don’t? > [@Liberal](#): > > One-month-olds are incapable of giving meaningful consent, and therefore cannot be governed. Their rights are accrued as nonconsenting parties to a unary contract. What does that mean? They are parties to what contract? > [@Liberal](#): > > There is no judicial system, but rather a system of arbitration. And the police is quite a different thing as well. There is no ongoing legislation of any kind. Well go ahead and explain. > [@Liberal](#): > > I don’t know why a family earning an average income would be called an average family. I guess the Addam’s family could be called average if they made the right amount. Anyway, they’d be better off in Libertaria, where goods and services are less expensive, of higher quality, and more readily available. How much cheaper and how much more available would they be? What evidence do you have to support these claims? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2005, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/95 "2005-02-09T22:47:02Z")
> [@treis](#): > > What you are saying is that the endless bureaucratic coercion drives wages down to roughly 25% percent of what they should be? What evidence do you have to back this up with? I can’t give you evidence. There is no Libertaria. Your’re talking about another hypothetical here. There is no synthetic knowledge with respect to price and wage structures in a noncoercive market. It merely stands to reason that lower costs and more competition mean lower prices. > [@](#): > > Then why did you set the fee at the DoD’s budget divided by the population? Other people derive other figures by other means, but it seems to me that the DOD budget represents a reasonable place to start. Since a considerable portion of that budget is committed to a worldwide hegemonic imperialism, I think that the actual cost of defending the US from foreign coercion is far less than the budget. Once its role changes from policeman of the world to policeman of the homeland (I hate that Bush has ruined that term), it will have withdrawn forces stationed in half the nations on earth. It will have abandoned the maintenance of far flung fleets and divisions that do little more than provoke the world to hate us. Once its legislative mandates are removed, it will have taken on the role of defending individual citizens against coercion from one another — much more simple task logistically. Plus, it will benefit from the same lower costs that everyone else enjoys. So, in short, the number is just my best guess. There simply is no precedent to go by. > [@](#): > > Why is there not charity and philanthropy in America? We have people that go hungry, are homeless and don’t have access to medical care. Why would people in Libertaria start giving while in America they don’t? That just isn’t true. The top 100 philanthropic foundations gave almost $10.5 billion last year. The top 50 corporate givers accounted for more than $1.5 billion. And the top 25 community foundations gave more than $1.2 billion. ([Cite](http://fdncenter.org/research/trends_analysis/top100giving.html).) Plus, 60 percent of Americans volunteered for charitable work, giving an average of 192 hours of their time. ([Cite](http://philanthropyjournal.org/newsarticle.cfm?articleID=74575&PTSidebarOptID=9317&returnTo=page15174.cfm&returntoname=Giving%20&SiteID=1664&pageid=15174&sidepageid=15174).) You can Google for yourself the private charity donations, and so forth. > [@](#): > > What does that mean? They are parties to what contract? Their birth was a coercion. That makes their parents beholden to them until such time as they reach an age of consent. > [@](#): > > Well go ahead and explain. There is only one law: Government shall guarantee every citizen freedom from coercon. The purpose of arbitration is to interpret that law as it applies to voluntary human relations. > [@](#): > > How much cheaper and how much more available would they be? What evidence do you have to support these claims? I think it would vary. I think there would be less change in massive infrastructure goods and services and greater change in consumables. At least at first. I think that over time, practically everything would be less expensive because of less cost overhead, of greater quality because of the necessity for greater consumer savvy (less dependence on third parties like governments), and more available because of the lack of coercive obstacles facing entrepreneurs who otherwise could not try to compete. (There is no Senator Fatcat doing a favor for Mr. Tycoon.) ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/96 "2005-02-10T00:13:00Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I can’t give you evidence. There is no Libertaria. Your’re talking about another hypothetical here. There is no synthetic knowledge with respect to price and wage structures in a noncoercive market. It merely stands to reason that lower costs and more competition mean lower prices. So in essence what you are saying is that you pulled that number out of thin air. Why should I believe that your numbers are anywhere close to what they would be in Libertaria? I can just as easily say that without government protection unions would be quickly crushed in Libertaria causing real wages to drop drastically for the average Libertarian. Why is your reasoning any more valid than mine? > [@Liberal](#): > > Other people derive other figures by other means, but it seems to me that the DOD budget represents a reasonable place to start. Since a considerable portion of that budget is committed to a worldwide hegemonic imperialism, I think that the actual cost of defending the US from foreign coercion is far less than the budget. Once its role changes from policeman of the world to policeman of the homeland (I hate that Bush has ruined that term), it will have withdrawn forces stationed in half the nations on earth. It will have abandoned the maintenance of far flung fleets and divisions that do little more than provoke the world to hate us. Once its legislative mandates are removed, it will have taken on the role of defending individual citizens against coercion from one another ? much more simple task logistically. Plus, it will benefit from the same lower costs that everyone else enjoys. So, in short, the number is just my best guess. There simply is no precedent to go by. No theoretical study or anything? Just another guess you pulled out of the air? > [@Liberal](#): > > That just isn’t true. The top 100 philanthropic foundations gave almost $10.5 billion last year. The top 50 corporate givers accounted for more than $1.5 billion. And the top 25 community foundations gave more than $1.2 billion. ([Cite](http://fdncenter.org/research/trends_analysis/top100giving.html).) Plus, 60 percent of Americans volunteered for charitable work, giving an average of 192 hours of their time. ([Cite](http://philanthropyjournal.org/newsarticle.cfm?articleID=74575&PTSidebarOptID=9317&returnTo=page15174.cfm&returntoname=Giving%20&SiteID=1664&pageid=15174&sidepageid=15174).) You can Google for yourself the private charity donations, and so forth. It isn’t enough though we still have hunger, we still have the homeless and we still have people without medical care. Why would people in Libertaria decide to help these people while in America they don’t. > [@Liberal](#): > > Their birth was a coercion. That makes their parents beholden to them until such time as they reach an age of consent. Does that mean there is no fee for children? If so then why did you divide the DoD’s budget by the total population. What is the age of consent in Libertaria and what does that mean if the only law is that the “Government shall garuntee every citizens freedom from coercion”? > [@Liberal](#): > > There is only one law: Government shall guarantee every citizen freedom from coercon. The purpose of arbitration is to interpret that law as it applies to voluntary human relations. What does that mean? If someone is murdered does the government investigate? If someone strays onto my property am I free to blow their head off? What if your factory is polluting the rivers and air can I stop you? Does it mean that the government will not enforce contracts? What about patent rights does the government protect those? What about traffic accidents? What about paternity suits? What about inheritence laws? The list goes on and on. How can you base a entire legal system spanning from murder to embezzlement to copy right violation on 8 words. Is there any police at all? > [@Liberal](#): > > I think it would vary. I think there would be less change in massive infrastructure goods and services and greater change in consumables. At least at first. I think that over time, practically everything would be less expensive because of less cost overhead, of greater quality because of the necessity for greater consumer savvy (less dependence on third parties like governments), and more available because of the lack of coercive obstacles facing entrepreneurs who otherwise could not try to compete. (There is no Senator Fatcat doing a favor for Mr. Tycoon.) I see this time you didn’t even bother to make up a number. In short all your argument seems to be based on is the short comings of the United States government. I know the benefits and shortcomings of our current government you need to convince me Libertaria would be better for the average person. You need to convince an average worker in say France who has shelter, food, medical care, transportation, police, fire and numerous other benefits garunteed by the government to abandon those. I and I doubt anyone else will take the “best guess” of someone who can’t even get close to calculating an average families tax burden in America. Take this statement for example. > [@Liberal](#): > > Other people derive other figures by other means, but it seems to me that the DOD budget represents a reasonable place to start. You didn’t answer the question of why you chose the DoD budget you just said it is a ‘reasonable place to start’. You said it yourself the US military has a drastically different role than the military of Libertaria. The DoD budget has no bearing on what Libertaria’s judicial system will cost. To me it looks like you used that number becuase I used in my analysis. > [@Liberal](#): > > Since a considerable portion of that budget is committed to a worldwide hegemonic imperialism, I think that the actual cost of defending the US from foreign coercion is far less than the budget. Once its role changes from policeman of the world to policeman of the homeland (I hate that Bush has ruined that term), it will have withdrawn forces stationed in half the nations on earth. It will have abandoned the maintenance of far flung fleets and divisions that do little more than provoke the world to hate us. Once its legislative mandates are removed, it will have taken on the role of defending individual citizens against coercion from one another ? much more simple task logistically. Plus, it will benefit from the same lower costs that everyone else enjoys. So, in short, the number is just my best guess. There simply is no precedent to go by. An irrelevant little short about the use of the US’s military. I know all of this and I don’t support it. This is doing nothing to convince me. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/97 "2005-02-10T00:40:37Z")
I and I doubt anyone else will take the “best guess” of someone who can’t even get close to calculating an average families tax burden in America. Should be I \*\* won’t \*\* and I doubt anyone else will take the “best guess” of someone who can’t even get close to calculating an average family’s tax burden in America. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/98 "2005-02-10T11:20:22Z")
> [@treis](#): > > So in essence what you are saying is that you pulled that number out of thin air. Gosh, and you were almost being civil there for a while. I’m not surprised that you equate logic and reason to “thin air”. > [@](#): > > Why should I believe that your numbers are anywhere close to what they would be in Libertaria? Why should I care what you believe? > [@](#): > > I can just as easily say that without government protection unions would be quickly crushed in Libertaria causing real wages to drop drastically for the average Libertarian. No, you can’t. Libertaria protects union members from coercion just as much as other citizens. > [@](#): > > Why is your reasoning any more valid than mine? Apparently, because I know what libertarianism is. > [@](#): > > No theoretical study or anything? As I said, there have been many such estimates. You visit Cato. After all, you cited them. Go there and read their papers. > [@](#): > > Just another guess you pulled out of the air? Come to think of it, as I read your post, I am feeling a warm wind. > [@](#): > > It isn’t enough though we still have hunger, we still have the homeless and we still have people without medical care. Why would people in Libertaria decide to help these people while in America they don’t. Now, why should I give you the figures for American philanthropy and charity again? You are making a false statement, and everyone who reads to this point knows it. > [@](#): > > Does that mean there is no fee for children? If so then why did you divide the DoD’s budget by the total population. I explained why to a fare-thee-well. Read it. > [@](#): > > What is the age of consent in Libertaria and what does that mean if the only law is that the “Government shall garuntee every citizens freedom from coercion”? It is whatever age the parents and children decide. In the event of disagreement, the government arbitrates. Some people mature faster and slower than others. Some are never capable of giving meaningful consent. A person might be severely retarded or brain damaged. > [@](#): > > What does that mean? If someone is murdered does the government investigate? Of course. > [@](#): > > If someone strays onto my property am I free to blow their head off? Not necessarily. Not just for straying. Excessive force, even in defense, is coercive. > [@](#): > > What if your factory is polluting the rivers and air can I stop you? If the pollution invades your property, you can. > [@](#): > > Does it mean that the government will not enforce contracts? Of course not. > [@](#): > > What about patent rights does the government protect those? There is no such thing as patent rights. > [@](#): > > What about traffic accidents? What about them? > [@](#): > > What about paternity suits? What about them? > [@](#): > > What about inheritence laws? What about the word “one” don’t you understand? > [@](#): > > The list goes on and on. Yeah, I’ve seen the list a bazzilion times, mostly from people who can type faster than they can think. > [@](#): > > How can you base a entire legal system spanning from murder to embezzlement to copy right violation on 8 words. Both murder and embezzlement are coercions. > [@](#): > > Is there any police at all? I’m not going to answer that for you a third time. > [@](#): > > I see this time you didn’t even bother to make up a number. You’re right. I bothered constructing a logical argument whose essence and substance escape you. > [@](#): > > In short all your argument seems to be based on is the short comings of the United States government. You have summed up your own argument nicely. All you have done is make up reified propositions about an hypostatized entity that does not exist, and assign to it the worst possible outcome based on such ridiculously false assertions as Americans don’t give to charity. > [@](#): > > I know the benefits and shortcomings of our current government you need to convince me Libertaria would be better for the average person. No, I do not. In fact, what I told you from the get go is that the difference between us is that I couldn’t care less whether you live in Libertaria or not. I am not attempting to convert you or sell you on anything. You enjoy living off the success of others, and assuring your own comfort by means of someone else’s labor. Libertaria is decidedly not for you. > [@](#): > > You need to convince an average worker in say France who has shelter, food, medical care, transportation, police, fire and numerous other benefits garunteed by the government to abandon those. Your fellow socialists do not share your rosy view of France. > [@](#): > > Over the past five years, under the government of Prime Minister Lionel Jospin and his “left” coalition (composed of the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, the Greens, the Civil Bloc of Jean-Pierre Chevènement and the small party of the Radical Left) social inequality has become ever more pronounced. > > […snip…] > > Most of the much-touted 1.4 million new jobs created during the Jospin era belong to the category of so-called “precarious employment” (travail précaire), i.e., contract positions and temporary jobs. These have a fixed length, they pay far below the official scale and many of them are part-time. > > […snip…] > > This type of employment has led to the rapid expansion of a new kind of poverty that first emerged on a large scale in the United States: the phenomenon of the “working poor,” i.e., people who are not able to cover their basic needs even though they have a full-time or several part-time jobs. A recent report by the Ministry for Employment and Solidarity, entitled “Fighting the New Poverty,” begins with the words: “The high level of unemployment, the difficulties in reintegrating a large number of youth into working life, the growing rate of divorces and the excessive debts of more and more households have contributed to the emergence of a new kind of poverty." > > […snip…] > > Several reports put the number of homeless at 200,000, while pointing out that an additional 1.5 million people have “very bad housing.” The condition of public housing has deteriorated and more and more families are no longer able to pay their rent. > > […snip…] > > The article proceeded to point out that the income gap in France has widened dramatically. From 1983 to 1997, with a Socialist Party prime minister or president in office 12 of those 14 years, the percentage of workers falling into the lowest income category doubled from 5 to 10 percent. From the World Socialist Web Site, [Rising poverty and exploitation: France on the eve of the parliamentary elections](http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/fran-j07.shtml) > [@](#): > > I and I doubt anyone else will take the “best guess” of someone who can’t even get close to calculating an average families tax burden in America. I don’t think you and you are close either. Plus, I think you and you have confused average with median, since you and you said you and you meant income when you and you said families. > [@](#): > > You didn’t answer the question of why you chose the DoD budget you just said it is a ‘reasonable place to start’. That _IS_ my answer. Once again, I must remind you that your dissatisfaction does not constitute my evasion. I’m not satisfied with any of your answers either, but I don’t want to join in with the dishonesty, and pretend like you’re not answering. > [@](#): > > You said it yourself the US military has a drastically different role than the military of Libertaria. The DoD budget has no bearing on what Libertaria’s judicial system will cost. To me it looks like you used that number becuase I used in my analysis. Once again, there is no judicial system; there is a system of arbitration. Giving you answers is like giving a blind man a tour through a photography exhibit. The DOD has a judicial system, and it can be modified into a system of arbitration at undoubtedly less cost. > [@](#): > > An irrelevant little short about the use of the US’s military. I know all of this and I don’t support it. This is doing nothing to convince me. Convince you? 😃 Let me be clear. I do not want you to embrace libertarianism. I do not want it sullied and ruined beyond all recognition by a Neanderthal set of interpretation skills. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/99 "2005-02-10T12:25:02Z")
Come on, **Liberal** , **treis** has reined in his hostility, that is not a green flag for you to begin injecting inflammatory observations about his reasoning. I suspect that the two of you may as well knock it off, anyway; I doubt that this discussion is going to bear any fruit. (That is an observation, not an order or even a suggestion.) [/Moderator Mode] ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505/100 "2005-02-10T16:48:21Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Gosh, and you were almost being civil there for a while. I’m not surprised that you equate logic and reason to “thin air”. What logic? How did you come to 40000 being dirt poor? Why not 50000? Why not 30000? > [@Liberal](#): > > Why should I care what you believe? I thought you wanted to live in Libertaria that means you need to convince everyone else that they should too. > [@Liberal](#): > > No, you can’t. Libertaria protects union members from coercion just as much as other citizens. How will they be protected? Won’t any protection you give them be coercing the factory owner? > [@Liberal](#): > > Apparently, because I know what libertarianism is. Perhaps something more than cryptic one line responses will explain it better. > [@Liberal](#): > > As I said, there have been many such estimates. You visit Cato. After all, you cited them. Go there and read their papers. Why don’t you link to the one that you get your numbers from. > [@Liberal](#): > > Now, why should I give you the figures for American philanthropy and charity again? You are making a false statement, and everyone who reads to this point knows it. Are you telling me that we don’t have any hungry people, homeless people or people without medical care in a America? Why would Libertarians be compelled to meet these needs while Americans don’t? > [@Liberal](#): > > I explained why to a fare-thee-well. Read it. Where > [@Liberal](#): > > It is whatever age the parents and children decide. In the event of disagreement, the government arbitrates. Some people mature faster and slower than others. Some are never capable of giving meaningful consent. A person might be severely retarded or brain damaged. What test does Libertaria use? How is ensured that the test is consistant throughout Libertaria? You also didn’t answer whether or not Libertaria charges a fee for children. > [@Liberal](#): > > Not necessarily. Not just for straying. Excessive force, even in defense, is coercive. Why are you coercing property owners from protecting their property with the level of force they deem necessary? How is defensive force coercive? I did not force or even invite the person on my property. > [@Liberal](#): > > If the pollution invades your property, you can. How do you determine how much pollution is too much? How is the owner of the chemical plant supposed to know the acceptable level of pollution if the only law he knows of is “Government shall guarantee every citizen freedom from coercon.” > [@Liberal](#): > > Of course not. Why is the government of Libertaria coercing me into fufiling my contract? > [@Liberal](#): > > There is no such thing as patent rights. Why would anyone expend effort on research and developement if their inventions can just be stolen by the competitor at no cost? > [@Liberal](#): > > What about them? (traffic accidents) How are they handled? If I am injured in an accident do I have the ability to sue? If I do what defines negligence or fault in the accident? > [@Liberal](#): > > What about them? (paternity suit) Who gets the kid if the parents divorce absent of a prior agreement? > [@Liberal](#): > > What about the word “one” don’t you understand? How am I supposed to know that my interpetation of the one law is correct? I see that my interpetation of defensive force and contracts are different than yours and thats only out of 10 or so questions. > [@Liberal](#): > > Yeah, I’ve seen the list a bazzilion times, mostly from people who can type faster than they can think. No explanation just a little insult? > [@Liberal](#): > > Both murder and embezzlement are coercions. Who am I coercing when I embezzle money from an orginization? I did not force anyone to give me money nor did I enter into any sort of contract with how their money will be used. For example if I set up a charity saying that I will help the poor and pocket 95% of the donations is that illegal? I still give 5% of the money to the poor so my charity does help the poor. How is murder differentiated from an accidental killing from say manslaughter? > [@Liberal](#): > > I’m not going to answer that for you a third time. All you said was that the “police would be quite different”. How would they be quite different? > [@Liberal](#): > > You’re right. I bothered constructing a logical argument whose essence and substance escape you. It surely doesn’t escape me. Goods will be cheaper without government intervention. This isn’t exactly a brilliant conclusion. The devil lies in the details though how much cheaper will goods be and is that benefit better than having a government? > [@Liberal](#): > > You have summed up your own argument nicely. All you have done is make up reified propositions about an hypostatized entity that does not exist, and assign to it the worst possible outcome based on such ridiculously false assertions as Americans don’t give to charity. Now you are twisting my words. I never said Americans don’t give to charity I said they don’t give \*\* enough \*\*. There are also plenty of families like the one I described in America. Having an average income is common and having two kids is also common. I did not give them any magical deductions or fantasy tax breaks. I used our current tax law to get a general idea of how much they would pay. > [@Liberal](#): > > No, I do not. In fact, what I told you from the get go is that the difference between us is that I couldn’t care less whether you live in Libertaria or not. I am not attempting to convert you or sell you on anything. You enjoy living off the success of others, and assuring your own comfort by means of someone else’s labor. Libertaria is decidedly not for you. Hahahah. I for one am not going to live off the work of others. I just don’t want people starving, homeless and without medical care. > [@Liberal](#): > > I don’t think you and you are close either. Plus, I think you and you have confused average with median, since you and you said you and you meant income when you and you said families. What is wrong with my numbers? > [@Liberal](#): > > That _IS_ my answer. Once again, I must remind you that your dissatisfaction does not constitute my evasion. I’m not satisfied with any of your answers either, but I don’t want to join in with the dishonesty, and pretend like you’re not answering. You are telling me that making up a number for the income of the dirt poor that is 3-4 times what it is in the U.S. is an honest answer? As far as I can tell your logic is less government means more efficency sooo lets grab a number and say 40000 will be dirt poor. The poverty level for a single person is 9,310 in America so in effect you will have to quadruple the amount of goods and services produced in Libertaria. That is assuming an equal distribution which rarely happens. Again are you telling me that the government is keeping production at 25% of what it should be? > [@Liberal](#): > > Once again, there is no judicial system; there is a system of arbitration. Giving you answers is like giving a blind man a tour through a photography exhibit. The DOD has a judicial system, and it can be modified into a system of arbitration at undoubtedly less cost. See I think we have found the problem here. You say that the government will secure the right of the people from coercion and I am expected to derive what the entire legal system and society would be. I have no idea what is the correct interpetation is becuase you bristle at half the questions and ignore the other half. How is your average Libertarian supposed to know what reasonable force is in defending his property? How is he supposed to know how much pollution he can put out? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-maintain-a-government-without-taxes/288505.md?page=6)