One more note: some folks have suggested that the late 19th century (the gilded age) of the US might be a model for minimal taxation. Well, yes, there wasn’t much taxation, and there was a lot of infrastructure development.
So where did those resources for infrastructure development come from?
Massive seizures of property from Native Americans, coupled with massive giveaways to railroad corporations.
I don’t exactly think we should take this as a model for a minimal-tax modern society either.
If one’s clan leader lost a key battle, one might lose property, but that may just translate, in OP’s hyper-libertarian model, to picking the wrong insurance company or private security force. In the absence of military defeat, one’s property might be guaranteed by the clan leader, so long as one kept one’s commitments to feed serfs, provide military service, etc. (“Voluntary” commitments in OP’s diction, I guess, rather than extortion, since one could forfeit the property rather than be jailed.)
I have a sort of nostalgia for “benevolent” feudalism. I live in Asia in recently cleared jungle land and have heard stories about a “Tiger” who served this region fifty years ago – when it was too remote to be influenced by central government – as an (allegedly Robin Hood-like) warlord, protecting people’s property rights. (Of course, “property rights” were based on first arrival, lots were sized to have the radius of riflefire.)
Nostalgic as one might be for such a system, it’s difficult to imagine it applied to a modern technological economy.
At a certain point, you will just have to realize that you are wrong and that reality does not conform to your beliefs. We’ve passed that moment eons ago, by the way. The current government has actually been so deferential to its opponents that the only arbitrary thing they’ve done is argue amongst themselves how much deference they should show the opposition.
So your assertion (LOL!) is that the richer you are, the more paramilitary types you can hire to protect your money bin? Tell me, what happens to people cannot pay? If I wanted to kill you, and I had more and better equipped men, does that make me right?
Ultimately, we vote in those who make up the government, and everyone’s vote counts for the same amount. That’s is why they SHOULD be the most powerful group, because they are behold to no one except the will of the people. In your fantasy world, what happens to forces that compete and become more powerful than other groups? Can we replace them through voting? Through pitchforks and torches? Through begging for our lives at the point of a barrel? The beauty about government is that you can change it any time you get more people to agree with you. If you don’t like the management at, for example, Blackwater (or Xe), what can you do? What can you do if they start taking stuff from you because your enemies hired them and there are no groups more powerful?
How does that differ from any time you have a group more powerful than you?
No they cannot. That is illegal. They can get sued, and lose. Now, if what you mean is that government has the physical force capable of taking away your wealth, then to that I would say: so does everyone else stronger than you. And you know who will protect you from that? The government!
The constitution is backed by the force the government employs. The system employs millions of people. It is impossible for them to tailor all of that specifically to have a grudge against you. Where the courts decide which rights you have, you also have the right to appeal, and you have different people with different ideologies sitting in those other courts. If you lose them ALL, then you know what? You probably deserve whatever it is they are doing to you. As for what happened to the Japanese, what makes you think private courts won’t do that either?
You can leave the country. With a small fee of course 
Don’t give the Kleenex lobby any more power! If they want to wipe you from the face of the earth, they can. Unless of course its raining that day and the tissues get soggy
And as another aside(!!!) they still generally only arrest those who mean to do you harm! So you are benefiting, believe it or not! Thus they have a right to your taxes
Of course they can, if it is legitimate. Our system of laws that you have every right to change and submit input on makes it legitimate. If you don’t like it, you are free to vote in those who believe as you do
And if they do, there is a system of courts that you can appeal the decision to, and at the same time, you can still vote to repeal laws or elect legislators that will protect you. Tell me again how that would work in a private court where the other guy has more weapons than you do?
Fiat meaning by the legal system of laws that you agree to by living in this country? Yeah, I have no problems with them exercising their power to do that, why should you? Just because it inconveniences you? What makes you so special? Besides, if something is “on loan” to you permanently, its yours. Just because you think someone might take it in the future doesn’t mean its not yours until that happens, which it may never
Since the government is made of people, then by definition, government is moral the vast majority of the time. It is right and proper that we pay it taxes so that it can protect us
How were bad apples dealt with in the past? Did a small force of paramilitary types dismantle Standard Oil? Was a shootout at the AT&T offices what disbanded it? And if those small forces wanted to make a bigger force and enforce their beliefs on everybody, what will stop them? Another small force? So we’d be in constant anarchy everyday and companies would crash and burn all the time? Sounds great! Where do I sign up! 
So…they’d be The Government then? Hell, we can’t have that! They must be dismantled!
Will, I must say, you are one of the most hilarious posters we’ve ever had on this board! Thanks for making my day with your poetic interpretation of such an improbable and irrational world!
Wait - are you saying that state and local taxes are fine, but that federal taxes are extortion?
As for protection, you are making the classic libertarian assumption that you are smarter or richer than everyone else. Even if you can afford to hire a guard, some rich person or set of rich persons will be able to afford more guards to make themselves richer by taking all your stuff. And poor people who can’t afford guards will quickly lose what little they have. But that is fine with you, right?
Ah, so your tax free vision is only only a system that could be implemented in the United States? What a shame, I was hoping that us Irish could free ourselves from the bondage of taxation and return to our 7th century golden age. So taxes should only be abolished in the United States because, uniquely, you have no need for armed forces? Should they abolish taxes (and defense forces) in Canada? How about South Korea?
In any case, why do you think that the United States is under no threat of invasion? Could it possibly be due to the power of the US armed forces, using funds that were extorted from people like yourself?
Go to your nearest Indian reservation and ask the residents about the threat of invasion. :rolleyes:
In your ideal world, caring for your fellow citizen is mandated by men with tanks.
I have mentioned the right to self defense. We are talking in circles now.
You mention that morality is low when “the de facto government is the strongest clan or warlord”, yet you don’t realize that this is the case with a democratic government as well. The only difference is they obtain power by manipulating public perception instead of coming through with brute force. The oligopoly that controls government at any given time is indeed the strongest clan, with the strongest army.
I’ll take that chance.
Listen. You’re comparing a stateless society from 1000 years ago to a state controlled society from today. How about to compare a stateless society from 1000 years ago to a state controlled society from 1000 years ago.
This leads me to another benefit of a stateless society. There would be more of an incentive for rehabilitation of repeat wrongdoers because there is an insurance company responsible for damages he creates. If they can effectively rehabilitate the infractor, they will continue to see revenue.
I’m not too familiar with it actually, as I said, i’ve just seen it cited often. I intend to look into the matter further.
Gonna have to cut you off right there. BS.
You bemoan the lack of modern examples of a stateless society, yet you’re so certain you will be killed instantly in one. Interesting.
Nope. There was property long before government. The monkey’s banana from an earlier poster’s example comes to mind. In fact, since production must proceed predation, there would be no government if there were no property.
You’re all switched up. The premodern state was terrible until these ideas started gaining prominence.
BS. A society of warrior only would quickly destroy any productive peoples and die because they had nothing left to live off of.
Open your mind.
All taxes are extortion, but local taxes are less objectionable, yes. I’d still be against those, though.
You are making the classic authoritarian strawman. Not once have I even hinted at some superiority complex. These rich people would be easily outnumbered and outfunded by a protection service patronized by less well off and more numerous folks.
Suppose that taxes are extortion. So what? Unless you find a pool of something under America that is worth more than Saudi oil, you’re probably gonna need to tax in order to form a functioning society.
So, given that Americans have gotten together and voted for the system we have, why belly-ache about the injustice of it all? Do you curse the sky when night falls?
I never agreed to any right to self-defense. Your voluntary society requires that everyone accept that idea, by force. It is not a voluntary society, more voluntary, perhaps, but it rests on the same underpinnings of the tyranny of prevailing opinion.
I realize it; this is the least-bad option, limited government selected democratically. I’ll take politics over brute force anyday, frankly. Better to suffer the manipulation of my perceptions than the local warlord’s son raping my wife, with no recourse available to me or her.
But suppose that person B doesn’t have $333.33. Do you not build the road? Do A and C pay $500 each and prevent B from using it? According to your definition my road payment system might not be “fair” but its better for everyone involved than any of the alternatives.
Why are they less objectionable? Why is a vote of 1,000 to 999 to impose taxes in any way less objectionable than a vote of 100,000,000 to 99,000,000?
You’re the one assuming you can afford to hire the guard. And take a look at the amount of wealth owned by the richest in our reasonably egalitarian society. Where is the money for guards going to come from for the “lucky ducks” who pay no income tax now? Plus you are assuming that the majority is going to effectively organize, and fast enough so that the rich minority can’t stop them. If you were organizing common guards, would you protect those who couldn’t pay their share?
Now, if by some chance the majority did organize and outspend the rich, they’d probably feel safer if the guards for the rich reported to them. (That way they wouldn’t have to pay for guards protecting them from the rich.) Given that, they could make the rich pay for their share of protection. Voila, you have taxes again! Even for the middle class - someone not paying for guards would likely be protected since the guards would have an incentive to catch thieves no matter who they stole from, since they could steal from a member of the collective next. So you’d have to enforce security payments from all. More taxes!
An alternative would be gated communities with protection when you leave. Is that better?
Just like the Spartans killed off all the helots and then starved to death. No, wait, that didn’t happen.
I strongly, strongly recommend the book The Better Angels of Our Nature, by Stephen Pinker. It comprises a massive history of human violence and spends literally hundreds of pages tracking the declines in violence correlating with various changes in human society.
I’ve had vestiges on anarchist thought for the past two decades, based on the idea that, however bad individuals might be, they could never be as competent at killing as governments could be. This book conclusively proved this idea wrong.
Uh, what? Money isn’t a government invention? Are you kidding me? Who do you think invented money?
I don’t think you’re clear on how I’m using the word “modern.” It’s shown up in at least two different uses in this thread:
I’m not sure what you mean by property rights, then. A property right only exists if other people look at something and say, “Yep, that’s yours, I shouldn’t take it unless you give it to me.” Just saying “Mine!” doesn’t equate to property rights. Are you seriously suggesting that monkeys see another monkey holding a banana and think, “Gosh, I may be hungry, but by all rights that banana belongs to her, so I shouldn’t eat it”? If so, which species?
Again: check the book I recommended. The pre-modern state was terrible, no doubt–but the death rate under early tyrannies STILL tended to be less than the death rate amongst stateless hunter-gatherer groups. In any case, this has nothing to do with my point about the Enlightenment and its contribution to the rise of the modern nation state. I’m not switched up at all.
How much history have you read? I mean, seriously, this seems to be profoundly ignorant of little things like the Golden Horde.
There is disagreement among anthropologists about how long humans have been around, but some people trace us back to an ancestor 5 million years ago. Humans have probably had speech for about 100,000 years, and we’ve only had the written language for about 5,000 years.
In all this time, whether in written or spoken language, this is the weakest rebuttal a human has ever made to a request for a cite.
I don’t know why I bother to engage you, but this sort of insipid non sequitur is why your posting persona comes across as almost inane and uneducable. The context was medieval Ireland, not Farnaby. Can you Google and come back and tell us whether many of those people were Christian believers?
It’s always been my view that Democracy provides a foundation for society to work from. We each pay into it and get a vote with how the money is spent. We may not always be happy with the outcome but it’s better than the alternative.
The issue with Democracy is it leaves itself open to all kinds of criticism. Everyone is dissatisfied with it in one way or another, and combined with the fact that many are very ignorant of its function, ends with it being taken for granted.
So it’s easy for Mr. Passive-aggressive Libertarian to come in and say, “we’ll that wouldn’t happen under my system” no matter what the issue is. And people fall for it.
This is not correct, at least in the United States. You won’t get prison time for not paying your taxes, no matter how much you owe. You only get prison time for filing a false tax return. So if you owe the IRS a thousand dollars they’ll try to seize your assets and grab your paycheck and so on, but you won’t go to jail unless you committed fraud.
Suppose there are three individuals on an island. They agree that if any of them are in danger of drowning, the others will help him. The next day A is swimming around looking for food and starts drowning. B pulls him out and C performs CPR and saves him. The next day B is swimming around looking for food and starts drowning. A pulls him out and C performs CPR and saves him. C never goes into the water to look for food, so he never needs saving. C sulks about the fact that he is being treated unfairly because he never almost drowned.
ETA: Holy cow, 7 pages and I’ve only read the first one.
Yes, taxation is a form of extortion.
Or, more precisely, of rent, because sovereignty over the land has not been surrendered to the fee-holders who are styled “land-owners.”
So what?
Who says extortion is necessarily bad? Or coercion? All effective law is coercive.
Between Reconstruction and the new deal, the US was undergoing a MASSIVE campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing, millions of people were crushed and murdered because of their skin color, company-owned soldiers were driving around in armored trains with honest-toGod machine guns, and most people weren’t even allowed to vote. “Far from a dystopia”, he says. :dubious:
Damn I never thought of it that before. We had economic growth because we were literally just killing people and taking their stuff on a massive scale.
Sheeyit.