And is arrest no different than kidnapping?
And then there are people who want Property without Government, failing to understand that without Government, there is no Property.
And that, as demonstrated above, in the absence of Government, one will be created. Government is a necessary construct when multiples of people are involved. Hailing back to ideas of living in small groups as an Ideal of human existence is absurdist fantasy. Barring some total collapse of the Human race, we will never live as small group hunter-gatherers again. Where there is Government, there must be taxes, as a way of the Collective supporting it’s needs. Again, the only possible solution to any foolish idea of taxes as theft or extortion is to place oneself outside of Human Civilization. And no, you don’t do this by remaining in your comfy house or apartment in the middle of that civilization and making bizarre proclamations of your independence while you continue to enjoy the benefits of Civilization.
There is far less choice involved in the country you are born in than where you buy a home. Also, as for the association benefits, the important question is - can you be excluded from using those benefits? For e.g is the benefit a gym, where monthly membership can be charged separately to each person using it, or is it for, say a security guard, whose presence benefits all the home owners, whether they use him or no? It is not ok to charge everyone dues for the former, but it is ok for the latter, provided the guard is essential.
When did I ever say the no counts for more? If it did, then spending would not happen. I’m saying it should be limited to the extent possible because there are no votes. And that extent need not be determined by vote. A popular vote doesn’t make something right. As for what majority is to my liking? What majority do you need to make constitutional amendments? I’m presuming close to 70 to 80%?
You do get to vote on gas. Every single time you buy it in fact. And you vote with something far more valuable to you than your vote. Petrol consumption is not inelastic(although it does have low elasticities). In other words, oil companies cannot keep increasing prices without seeing consumption drop or other alternatives become viable, as they are increasingly doing. Also, you may not get to vote on high oil prices, but they themselves spur innovation to free you from their tyranny.
All that said, I really do not get this extension of the argument. If you do not buy oil, nobody is going to arrest you. If you buy the oil, you pay what you agreed on. There is a very clear choice that you make in there. You bear the cost, you get most/all of the benefit. It’s a private good.
Air pollution is definitely the form of negative externality/public good that falls within purview of government action.
It is different, but it is similar too. Which is why it must be justified and kept to the minimum necessary. Another thing governments tend to fail at, the one in the US in particular, don’t you think?
Given the growth of the public debt, you must then concede we are not taxing nearly enough.
A substantial amount of time for one of our pools is spent on the kids swim team. My kids are gone, and when they were here they weren’t interested. Am I excluded? Perhaps, but I’m fine with people who need the pool using it. Just like I’m fine with people needing unemployment benefits getting them. I’ve never gotten a penny from unemployment, and at this point never will, but I don’t feel excluded. Maybe I’m missing how the government excludes people from things.
What does make it right - your opinion? Since you objected to your strawman law passing with 50% + 1 votes, I assumed that you thought it should pass with more. You seem to oppose letting the people speak because you are against what they say. And anything you support I could find someone who would oppose it, including military spending.
As for the Constitution, that was a policy decision by the founders to make it stable and to make changes difficult. Many states make it easier to amend their constitutions, and they wind up with hundreds of sometimes contradictory amendments. So the difficulty of amending the US constitution is a good idea, and forces more laws and fewer amendments, but that isn’t a law of nature.
Nonsense. In the short run consumption drops only very slightly when prices increase. When I started driving gas prices were a tenth of what they are today, and only very recently have hybrids and electric vehicles offered an alternative. My work does not move in proportion to the price of gas.
You don’t get arrested if you refuse a real extortionist either. Your life just gets worse. Sure I don’t have to buy another tank of gas, but if I don’t I either have to move really close to work, which would have me spend more for less space and would be disruptive, quit my job for one I could work at home - unlikely - or spend relatively more of my time on the three steps of public transportation I’d require to get here. Much of our participation in society comes with constraints - paying for gas and taxes are just two.
Which is why Anarchists want to be rid of Government.
[QUOTE=bldysabba ]
That’s not what you said. Of course government has a role to play in the economy. That role is usually not delivery of services, unless you’re counting the military, police, courts and the like.
[/QUOTE]
Why wouldn’t you count military, police, courts and the like as “services”?
It’s also why most anarchists are smelly dirtbags.
I have very little idea of the US’s public finances, but why could it not be that you’re spending too much?
Maybe you’re missing what the term excludable means? A good that is excludable is a good that you can control access to. If you can control who benefits from the swimming pool and who doesn’t, (and you can), then it is wrong to charge those who cannot use it, particularly if they do not want to pay. There are 20 homeowners of which 15 decide they need a pool. 5 do not. Is the right solution to force those 5 to pay as well?
So you’re saying the constitution being difficult to change is a good idea, even though 51% of the people may want it to be changed and be unable to? The people may not always be right?
I looked it up. Short term demand elasticities are of the range of -2 to -3 percent for a 10% rise in fuel costs. And yes, stickiness of demand(your work not getting closer) is an issue in that elasticity being as low as it is. But I assure you, these issues are trivial compared to the issues you would have if you could vote on oil prices, and tax dollars covered consumption of fuel. I’m pretty sure you would agree with me on that too.
No; that’s using society’s coercion and control as an example of evil, not defining evil.
You win the thread! Best rebuttal to date.
Of course they aren’t. They aren’t superhumans. People, especially people in a mass have well known tendencies towards flawed judgement, and a sensibly designed system is designed to compensate for those flaws; it isn’t designed to cater to nonexistent perfect superhumans who are morally perfect and never err.
Total non sequitur. Let’s review the conversation:
You put forward a focus on private property as a signature move of successful government–in support of the OP’s claim that taxation=extortion (I think). When I pointed out that this focus on private property had to be mediated by taxation in order to run a high-tech economy–and I specified “highways” as the standard of high-tech for a reason–you bizarrely asked me for a cite for this claim.
So asking me to show you where you called for no services is completely off-topic. I might as well ask you to show me where I called for outlawing strawberry cheesecake for all it has to do with the discussion.
I think you, and many others, enshrine private property as some sort of end in itself, instead of recognizing it as a very useful, but imperfect, means for the government to say who gets to use what goods.
Private property and taxes are ends of the same spectrum, the spectrum being the government’s telling people who gets to use what. Private property is on the stultification end of the spectrum (“Whoever has it gets to use it unless they give it away.”) Taxation is on the other, more dynamic end (“Whoever needs it most gets to use it.”) Going too far to either end leads to troubles, IMO.
Actually, no you’re misunderstanding this exchange somewhere. I have, throughout this thread, said that taxation should be at the minimum level possible while still providing services that are both essential and non-excludable. I asked for a cite for your claim that “Governments that go for minimal taxation don’t tend to work very well in our world”. You claimed the null and cited Afghanistan and Somalia. My response asking you to point out my post was meant to indicate that your cite was way off base. “No government” is not the same as “minimal taxation”. Failed states that cannot provide any services are not in any way, shape or form the same as states that employ minimal taxation. The UK and the US for much of their modern(post 18th century) history are far better examples of states that were minimal taxation states. The rest of your post was…unusual, and the stultifying-dynamic axis with taxation at one end and private property at the other is among the stranger things I’ve heard.
Fortunately, taxpayer supported institutions will defend the OP’s rights to express himself. That’s a sharp contrast from numerous nations around the world where some local authority would just make him disappear.
Those local authorities are typically tax funded too though aren’t they?
In addition to health-care, government should offer baths.
Unless you’re an anarchist who doesn’t think government is necessary, the reason why taxes are not evil or immoral are that government agencies need a steady and reliable stream of revenue to operate. Taxes are the only way to supply that revenue.
Let’s take a hypothetical. There’s a city with it’s own police force. Paying for it is now voluntary.
[ul]
[li]The people in the rich section of town rarely or never call the police, and can afford private security.[/li][li]They decide private security is more effective and don’t want to pay for both private and public, so they stop paying money to the police force.[/li][li]The price for everybody else now has gone up.[/li][li]Some people who want police protection can now no longer afford it. The price goes up some more.[/li][li]Now the police are being funded by a few well off individuals.[/li][/ul]
Should the police force protect everybody, even those not paying? Or should it become just another private security force? If a private security force, who protects those who want to pay, but can’t afford it?
Let’s say they protect everyone. While under the current system the rich get away with a lot more than the poor, under a voluntary payment system things would only get worse. I could easily imagine, “You need my money to continue operating. Drop the investigation against my son or else I’ll stop funding you.”’
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
That’s the way the Founders intended it to be:
Quote:
“All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.” ~~Benjamin Franklin, letter to Robert Morris, 1793
If you don’t like the Constitution, just say so.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for that quote.
I am trying to think of a truly involuntary tax. Income - one made the choice to work. Sales taxes - one made the choice to buy instead or make or barter. Capital dividends, business taxes, employment taxes - all derived from voluntary activities. Property taxes - I remember reading about hermits living on federal land (usually in the Nevada desert), not sure if they pay taxes. One could join a religious order - I don’t believe monasteries, convents and the like pay taxes. Plus property is only defined by deeds and contracts which are legal (i.e. governmental) instruments. No government = no property. And the choice to acquire (or even rent) property is a voluntary choice. And there are plenty of jurisdictions in this country where the residents pay minimal amounts (and usually have the infrastructure to show for it and the well-paying jobs that go along with such.)
Now, I am not sure if 18 is old enough to make an informed decision about whether to continue one’s citizenship here, and I doubt 18 year-olds receive sufficient education to be informed. (I did not learn just what a bastard the US has been throughout its history until well into my twenties.) And it certainly is not easy to leave this country (gee, ya think more countries would welcome us with open arms, us being such a great people and all.)
Yet for all its fcked up history, the United States is one of the least fcked up ones out there (though we are so not special nor exceptional) as plenty of people demonstrate every year by coming here, legally or otherwise.
And I am not certain I can agree with the proposition that we even have ownership over ourselves. Nature certainly does not give a whit about any such claim. At best we are merely stewards - we can take the best care of ourselves as our ability allows us - and that ability is greatly enhanced by living in a functionally governed society, but there is no guarantee that such care will be rewarded.
I certainly do not agree with every policy made, and feel outright disgust at most of our history, and major reforms in governance are still needed. But we are a continual work in progress. Democratic republics are the best option we have figured out yet. They are far from perfect, but they are made and composed of imperfect beings. They are human constructs. Only as good as the components. And I gladly pay my share of the club fees to participate in that progress - as frustrating and often infuriating as that participation may be. Again, far better than the alternatives.
One ancient authority’s pronouncement concerning taxes:
If it’s good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.
*Matthew 22:21