Comments on: Taxation Is Not Theft http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/04/taxation-is-not-theft.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:51:04 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Polly http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/04/taxation-is-not-theft.html#comment-49290 Polly Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:07:09 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1002#comment-49290 I detest many of the things my tax dollars go to. But that's a different subject. As far as paying too much, I don't see it. I make a comfortable amount over the median income, and my EFFECTIVE tax rate - which is not the posted tax bracket rates but what one truly pays in taxes as a percentage of gross income - is meager. Honestly, I get to live in the world's richest most technologically advanced nation, enjoy an overall good economy of limitless opportunity for advancement and education, clean streets, safe drugs and food and buildings, and road and freeway systems across a virtual continent for THIS much? DEAL! If you're an American take a look at the rest of the world, how they live and what they live on and their level of personal freedom...and then STFU. I detest many of the things my tax dollars go to. But that's a different subject. As far as paying too much, I don't see it.

I make a comfortable amount over the median income, and my EFFECTIVE tax rate - which is not the posted tax bracket rates but what one truly pays in taxes as a percentage of gross income - is meager.
Honestly, I get to live in the world's richest most technologically advanced nation, enjoy an overall good economy of limitless opportunity for advancement and education, clean streets, safe drugs and food and buildings, and road and freeway systems across a virtual continent for THIS much? DEAL!

If you're an American take a look at the rest of the world, how they live and what they live on and their level of personal freedom...and then STFU.

]]> By: Thumpalumpacus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/04/taxation-is-not-theft.html#comment-49284 Thumpalumpacus Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:37:18 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1002#comment-49284 <blockquote>I have to ask: What club charges its members an average of 40% of their income(when all Federal, State and Local taxes are combined), and charges members extra for being wealthy, or for owning a house(property taxes) or for being single without kids, and then takes dues from one of its members heirs after he dies(estate taxes)? </blockquote> Retirement communities?

I have to ask: What club charges its members an average of 40% of their income(when all Federal, State and Local taxes are combined), and charges members extra for being wealthy, or for owning a house(property taxes) or for being single without kids, and then takes dues from one of its members heirs after he dies(estate taxes)?

Retirement communities?

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/04/taxation-is-not-theft.html#comment-49259 Alex Weaver Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:29:15 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1002#comment-49259 <blockquote>I have to ask: What club charges its members an average of 40% of their income(when all Federal, State and Local taxes are combined), and charges members extra for being wealthy, or for owning a house(property taxes) or for being single without kids, and then takes dues from one of its members heirs after he dies(estate taxes)?</blockquote> What club offers its members the range of services that the US government offers its citizens?

I have to ask: What club charges its members an average of 40% of their income(when all Federal, State and Local taxes are combined), and charges members extra for being wealthy, or for owning a house(property taxes) or for being single without kids, and then takes dues from one of its members heirs after he dies(estate taxes)?

What club offers its members the range of services that the US government offers its citizens?

]]> By: Andrew http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/04/taxation-is-not-theft.html#comment-49258 Andrew Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:53:01 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1002#comment-49258 I have to ask: What club charges its members an average of 40% of their income(when all Federal, State and Local taxes are combined), and charges members extra for being wealthy, or for owning a house(property taxes) or for being single without kids, and then takes dues from one of its members heirs after he dies(estate taxes)? I'm not opposed to paying taxes per se, but our current tax system(in America at least) is a mess, and we pay WAY TOO MUCH in taxes. I have to ask: What club charges its members an average of 40% of their income(when all Federal, State and Local taxes are combined), and charges members extra for being wealthy, or for owning a house(property taxes) or for being single without kids, and then takes dues from one of its members heirs after he dies(estate taxes)?

I'm not opposed to paying taxes per se, but our current tax system(in America at least) is a mess, and we pay WAY TOO MUCH in taxes.

]]> By: Steve Victor http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/04/taxation-is-not-theft.html#comment-46781 Steve Victor Wed, 06 May 2009 00:05:26 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1002#comment-46781 The analogy of government as "private club" is false. Unlike a private club, which owns its property, the US government does NOT own this country. It acts like it does, but it does not. BTW, this is a republic, not a democracy, and the government is supposed to be restrained by the Constitution. The fact that 90% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional should give us pause, but we are so used to the abuses that few people question them. This includes taxes. We're being taxed at a rate at least triple that of medieval serfs. Yes, all taxation IS theft. The ideal would be a voluntary system; true, many people would pay nothing, but those with more to lose would gladly DONATE, say, 10% of their income to keep "essential" government services going. I suspect that many libertarians would accept this level of VOLUNTARY donations (while still grumbling about it, correctly, IMHO). The analogy of government as "private club" is false. Unlike a private club, which owns its property, the US government does NOT own this country. It acts like it does, but it does not. BTW, this is a republic, not a democracy, and the government is supposed to be restrained by the Constitution. The fact that 90% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional should give us pause, but we are so used to the abuses that few people question them. This includes taxes. We're being taxed at a rate at least triple that of medieval serfs. Yes, all taxation IS theft. The ideal would be a voluntary system; true, many people would pay nothing, but those with more to lose would gladly DONATE, say, 10% of their income to keep "essential" government services going. I suspect that many libertarians would accept this level of VOLUNTARY donations (while still grumbling about it, correctly, IMHO).

]]> By: Kaltro http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/04/taxation-is-not-theft.html#comment-46388 Kaltro Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:59:27 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1002#comment-46388 Leum: "Out of curiosity, if it were easier to move between nation-states (i.e. borders were more or less completely porous) would you be less opposed to the system?" Perhaps slightly less. But that wouldn't solve the problem. The nation-states would take up just as much space as they do now, and there would be nowhere to go that would truly be free of them except perhaps Antarctica. Even there governments have a presence, however. On the other hand, freedom of movement might erode our current nation-states. I don't really know what would happen if such a massive change in policy was allowed across the world. Probably Europe would look a lot more Chinese due to immigrants from China, for starters. What are the chances of every nation-state agreeing to this freedom of movement, though? I'd say pretty much no chance. Leum:
"Out of curiosity, if it were easier to move between nation-states (i.e. borders were more or less completely porous) would you be less opposed to the system?"

Perhaps slightly less. But that wouldn't solve the problem. The nation-states would take up just as much space as they do now, and there would be nowhere to go that would truly be free of them except perhaps Antarctica. Even there governments have a presence, however.

On the other hand, freedom of movement might erode our current nation-states. I don't really know what would happen if such a massive change in policy was allowed across the world. Probably Europe would look a lot more Chinese due to immigrants from China, for starters. What are the chances of every nation-state agreeing to this freedom of movement, though? I'd say pretty much no chance.

]]> By: Leum http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/04/taxation-is-not-theft.html#comment-46350 Leum Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:00:22 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1002#comment-46350 I got the idea from your statement that the difference between 40 chieftains and 180 nation-states was that the former were individuals, not societies. Out of curiosity, if it were easier to move between nation-states (i.e. borders were more or less completely porous) would you be less opposed to the system? I got the idea from your statement that the difference between 40 chieftains and 180 nation-states was that the former were individuals, not societies. Out of curiosity, if it were easier to move between nation-states (i.e. borders were more or less completely porous) would you be less opposed to the system?

]]> By: Kaltro http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/04/taxation-is-not-theft.html#comment-46334 Kaltro Wed, 29 Apr 2009 03:04:05 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1002#comment-46334 "Surely you wouldn't prefer 180 dictatorships in place of our current governments, provided you could move freely between them?" Since I have never advocated for dictatorships I don't see the relevance of the question, Leum. Dictatorship-- whether by the majority, an oligarchy, or whatever form it takes-- is what I've been arguing against. If you're suggesting that dictatorship is the inevitable alternative to our modern democracies I don't buy that. For one thing, a democracy is itself a dictatorship by the majority, and fifty-one percent of any given democracy can force the other forty-nine percent to do whatever the majority wants. In our modern political system it is even worse since a large chunk of the populace can't bring itself to vote in elections, or is too young to vote. In 2008, for example, about 130 million cast votes in a total population exceeding 300 million. Of the votes cast about 70 million went to Barack Obama. So roughly one fourth of the U.S. population decided on the President intended to speak and act for them all. Hardly representative, is it? I prefer liberty to every sort of dictatorship. "Surely you wouldn't prefer 180 dictatorships in place of our current governments, provided you could move freely between them?"

Since I have never advocated for dictatorships I don't see the relevance of the question, Leum. Dictatorship-- whether by the majority, an oligarchy, or whatever form it takes-- is what I've been arguing against.

If you're suggesting that dictatorship is the inevitable alternative to our modern democracies I don't buy that. For one thing, a democracy is itself a dictatorship by the majority, and fifty-one percent of any given democracy can force the other forty-nine percent to do whatever the majority wants. In our modern political system it is even worse since a large chunk of the populace can't bring itself to vote in elections, or is too young to vote. In 2008, for example, about 130 million cast votes in a total population exceeding 300 million. Of the votes cast about 70 million went to Barack Obama. So roughly one fourth of the U.S. population decided on the President intended to speak and act for them all. Hardly representative, is it?

I prefer liberty to every sort of dictatorship.

]]> By: Leum http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/04/taxation-is-not-theft.html#comment-46324 Leum Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:17:08 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1002#comment-46324 Surely you wouldn't prefer 180 dictatorships in place of our current governments, provided you could move freely between them? Surely you wouldn't prefer 180 dictatorships in place of our current governments, provided you could move freely between them?

]]> By: Kaltro http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/04/taxation-is-not-theft.html#comment-46322 Kaltro Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:03:21 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1002#comment-46322 Themann: "The fact that every non-collapsing society ends up having a state entity, an entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, is not my problem." That's not historically accurate. States are terrible at avoiding collapse. Some of them just last longer. The Roman Empire fell. The Persian Empire fell. Athens fell to Sparta. Sparta disintegrated of its own weaknesses. For a while France was switching its government every fifty years or less. History is full of men trying to build great states--men like Alexander the Great, Caesar, Augustus, Ashoka in ancient India, and so on-- only to have their grand political achievements break apart after their deaths. The United States didn't make it a century before getting nearly torn apart by civil war, and before that it fought in a number of other costly wars. Suggesting that states make society stable is absurd. Any state is a bloodthirsty state to one degree or another; you could count the number of consistently pacifist states on one hand. I hope we can agree that war does not tend to create stability for anyone. "It's what I keep pushing at, and you keep dodging: who will enforce penalties on those using "coercive force", and prevent penalties from being enacted on those using "retaliatory force"? An entity with the final say on whether or not an action of force is legitimate is a state." But who will watch the watchman? Making a single state the final arbiter gives that state a corrupting amount of power. It doesn't matter who you vote in. They'll abuse their power if they have the final say. My solution would be to decentralize law enforcement and other such services. Since it is a common need in human society, society will develop local solutions to such problems. Spreading out responsibility is much better, to my mind, than concentrating it in a single entity. You might not find that 'final' or 'definitive' enough. You'll have to get religion if you want a more absolute authority to depend on. I still disagree with you on the Icelandic Commonwealth. What we know of it doesn't match your first definition of a state--that is, monopoly on legitimate use of force. Your confederation idea doesn't quite fit either; confederacies are groups of states, not individuals. Prase: "Similarly, no particular state has a monopoly on force, the states compete with each other to win citizens. There are about 180 independent states today, not much maybe, but the number of Icelandic goðar was about 40. What's exactly the core of the difference?" The difference is that a chieftain is an individual while a state is not. I consider the individual to be the basic and unalienable unit of human society. Themann:
"The fact that every non-collapsing society ends up having a state entity, an entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, is not my problem."

That's not historically accurate. States are terrible at avoiding collapse. Some of them just last longer. The Roman Empire fell. The Persian Empire fell. Athens fell to Sparta. Sparta disintegrated of its own weaknesses. For a while France was switching its government every fifty years or less. History is full of men trying to build great states--men like Alexander the Great, Caesar, Augustus, Ashoka in ancient India, and so on-- only to have their grand political achievements break apart after their deaths. The United States didn't make it a century before getting nearly torn apart by civil war, and before that it fought in a number of other costly wars. Suggesting that states make society stable is absurd. Any state is a bloodthirsty state to one degree or another; you could count the number of consistently pacifist states on one hand. I hope we can agree that war does not tend to create stability for anyone.

"It's what I keep pushing at, and you keep dodging: who will enforce penalties on those using "coercive force", and prevent penalties from being enacted on those using "retaliatory force"? An entity with the final say on whether or not an action of force is legitimate is a state."

But who will watch the watchman? Making a single state the final arbiter gives that state a corrupting amount of power. It doesn't matter who you vote in. They'll abuse their power if they have the final say.

My solution would be to decentralize law enforcement and other such services. Since it is a common need in human society, society will develop local solutions to such problems. Spreading out responsibility is much better, to my mind, than concentrating it in a single entity. You might not find that 'final' or 'definitive' enough. You'll have to get religion if you want a more absolute authority to depend on.

I still disagree with you on the Icelandic Commonwealth. What we know of it doesn't match your first definition of a state--that is, monopoly on legitimate use of force. Your confederation idea doesn't quite fit either; confederacies are groups of states, not individuals.

Prase:
"Similarly, no particular state has a monopoly on force, the states compete with each other to win citizens. There are about 180 independent states today, not much maybe, but the number of Icelandic goðar was about 40. What's exactly the core of the difference?"

The difference is that a chieftain is an individual while a state is not. I consider the individual to be the basic and unalienable unit of human society.

]]> By: themann1086 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/04/taxation-is-not-theft.html#comment-46293 themann1086 Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:21:02 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1002#comment-46293 <blockquote>Why are you shifting? First you were convinced the Icelandic Commonwealth fit the definition of a state. Now you're saying it fits the definition of a *confederation*. Make up your mind. Was it a single state, or a confederation?</blockquote> Well, see, I'm not an expert in 10-12th century Icelandic politics, so I don't want to overstate my case. A confederacy functions similarly to a state, but its reach is much more limited. I included the qualifier because it's not clear-cut when a nation-state begins and a confederacy of states ends. I try to be precise with my arguments when possible, so I left it open that either might be possible. <blockquote>I'm skeptical of whether or not it would matter how good my case was. You've been re-interpreting things to fit your view from the start, and you'd probably do the same with any case I made so that to you my case wasn't satisfactory.</blockquote> I've interpreted things as they are by political scientists. If you don't like it, take it up with them. The fact that every non-collapsing society ends up having a state entity, an entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, is not my problem. It's what I keep pushing at, and you keep dodging: who will enforce penalties on those using "coercive force", and prevent penalties from being enacted on those using "retaliatory force"? An entity with the final say on whether or not an action of force is legitimate <i>is a state</i>. If you have that entity, you are not arguing for a stateless society, you are arguing for a peculiar kind of state. If you do not have that entity... <blockquote>As well, there you go again-- saying I'm a proponent of a 'different state' when I have been arguing for No State At All. You have some sort of fixation on states.</blockquote> I know you have, that's why I was extending you the same courtesy/challenge extended proponents of different states; I was welcoming you to the table. And since we're debating states, um, of course I keep bringing them up? Or would you prefer I make arguments about states without referencing states? <blockquote>Who says it would be a state by your given definition?</blockquote> Uh, because any entity with the final say (etc etc) is a state <blockquote>I have no way of knowing exactly what such a mass voluntary association would look like in practice. You can't just assume they would agree to form a society along the lines you find agreeable. It might be very different than you think. There's no way to know for sure exactly how it would look.</blockquote> I agree. It could very well be a government that functions on terms I don't particularly care for. But it would be a state, which is what I've been driving at: states are an inevitable outcome of human societies. It could take any number of forms: oligarchies, monarchies, direct democracies, representative democracies, dictatorships of the proletariat... and it could be in a variety of sizes, and it could take any number of different policies. But <i>it is still a state</i>.

Why are you shifting? First you were convinced the Icelandic Commonwealth fit the definition of a state. Now you're saying it fits the definition of a *confederation*. Make up your mind. Was it a single state, or a confederation?

Well, see, I'm not an expert in 10-12th century Icelandic politics, so I don't want to overstate my case. A confederacy functions similarly to a state, but its reach is much more limited. I included the qualifier because it's not clear-cut when a nation-state begins and a confederacy of states ends. I try to be precise with my arguments when possible, so I left it open that either might be possible.

I'm skeptical of whether or not it would matter how good my case was. You've been re-interpreting things to fit your view from the start, and you'd probably do the same with any case I made so that to you my case wasn't satisfactory.

I've interpreted things as they are by political scientists. If you don't like it, take it up with them. The fact that every non-collapsing society ends up having a state entity, an entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, is not my problem. It's what I keep pushing at, and you keep dodging: who will enforce penalties on those using "coercive force", and prevent penalties from being enacted on those using "retaliatory force"? An entity with the final say on whether or not an action of force is legitimate is a state. If you have that entity, you are not arguing for a stateless society, you are arguing for a peculiar kind of state. If you do not have that entity...

As well, there you go again-- saying I'm a proponent of a 'different state' when I have been arguing for No State At All. You have some sort of fixation on states.

I know you have, that's why I was extending you the same courtesy/challenge extended proponents of different states; I was welcoming you to the table.

And since we're debating states, um, of course I keep bringing them up? Or would you prefer I make arguments about states without referencing states?

Who says it would be a state by your given definition?

Uh, because any entity with the final say (etc etc) is a state

I have no way of knowing exactly what such a mass voluntary association would look like in practice. You can't just assume they would agree to form a society along the lines you find agreeable. It might be very different than you think. There's no way to know for sure exactly how it would look.

I agree. It could very well be a government that functions on terms I don't particularly care for. But it would be a state, which is what I've been driving at: states are an inevitable outcome of human societies. It could take any number of forms: oligarchies, monarchies, direct democracies, representative democracies, dictatorships of the proletariat... and it could be in a variety of sizes, and it could take any number of different policies. But it is still a state.

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/04/taxation-is-not-theft.html#comment-46276 Alex Weaver Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:43:32 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1002#comment-46276 <blockquote>Why are you shifting? First you were convinced the Icelandic Commonwealth fit the definition of a state. Now you're saying it fits the definition of a *confederation*. Make up your mind. Was it a single state, or a confederation?</blockquote> Does it make it better for you, somehow, if it was a collection of states attached to each other rather than a single state?

Why are you shifting? First you were convinced the Icelandic Commonwealth fit the definition of a state. Now you're saying it fits the definition of a *confederation*. Make up your mind. Was it a single state, or a confederation?

Does it make it better for you, somehow, if it was a collection of states attached to each other rather than a single state?

]]>