Let's assume that coercion is always wrong (I don't think it is, but I'll grant it to you for this hypothetical).
So... what's the alternative?
Apply this question to everyday activities.
You go to the grocery store. It does not carry the food item you want. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
You are a manager for a retail chain. You want your underlings to perform better and make more sales. It occurs to you to coerce. What's the alternative?
You are a teacher in a public school. The kids are getting out of hand. You could yell and maybe slap the kid around a little. That will do the trick, you are certain, but perhaps there is another way.
You see a girl you are rather attracted to, but she refuses to go on a date with you. You consider rape, but somehow you feel there are other solutions to the problem.
Your slave is acting up again. He tried to escape two times last month and you swear he tried to poison the well. I just have beat some sense into him. What other solution is there?
I didn't ask what the alternative was for any of those things; I asked what the alternative is for government.
Coercion is cheap and easy. True cooperation and communication is hard.
The alternative to coercion is curiosity, communication, and cooperation. That is very difficult when you have to account for the time and effort people (read: those employed by the government) have to spend with each case.
On an individual basis, it works as an alternative, if the person doesn't choose to take the easy route.
So. The alternative exists, yet it can't be implemented. If it is implemented, it can only be a token implementation because it simply isn't feasible.
Talking on an internet forum dominated by nerds is cheap. Engaging in weak semantics and poorly construed arguments in easy. Taking a stand for what you believe in and leading by example is hard.
You still haven't abandoned your condescending tone. Let me ask you this, if I don't feel that lawful government coercion is inherently immoral, are we at an impasse?
Is there any coercive action a government can do that you would not find immoral?
Is there any coercive action that an individual can do that you would not find immoral?
Let's assume that coercion is always wrong (I don't think it is, but I'll grant it to you for this hypothetical).
So... what's the alternative?
Apply this question to everyday activities.
You go to the grocery store. It does not carry the food item you want. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
You are a manager for a retail chain. You want your underlings to perform better and make more sales. It occurs to you to coerce. What's the alternative?
You are a teacher in a public school. The kids are getting out of hand. You could yell and maybe slap the kid around a little. That will do the trick, you are certain, but perhaps there is another way.
You see a girl you are rather attracted to, but she refuses to go on a date with you. You consider rape, but somehow you feel there are other solutions to the problem.
Your slave is acting up again. He tried to escape two times last month and you swear he tried to poison the well. I just have beat some sense into him. What other solution is there?
I didn't ask what the alternative was for any of those things; I asked what the alternative is for government.
Coercion is cheap and easy. True cooperation and communication is hard.
The alternative to coercion is curiosity, communication, and cooperation. That is very difficult when you have to account for the time and effort people (read: those employed by the government) have to spend with each case.
On an individual basis, it works as an alternative, if the person doesn't choose to take the easy route.
So. The alternative exists, yet it can't be implemented. If it is implemented, it can only be a token implementation because it simply isn't feasible.
So... you're proposing a system of governance (or lack thereof) that you are aware won't function in reality?
Yep! In other words, I am framing the argument in such a way as to point out the futility of government reform.
At least if we want to create an ethically sound system.
And we are pointing out why a slightly corrupt government is a better alternative to being gang raped by another country were we to dissolve one.
Slightly? Oh, no, our government is fantastically fucking corrupt.
It's just a substantial improvement over nothing.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Let's assume that coercion is always wrong (I don't think it is, but I'll grant it to you for this hypothetical).
So... what's the alternative?
Apply this question to everyday activities.
You go to the grocery store. It does not carry the food item you want. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
You are a manager for a retail chain. You want your underlings to perform better and make more sales. It occurs to you to coerce. What's the alternative?
You are a teacher in a public school. The kids are getting out of hand. You could yell and maybe slap the kid around a little. That will do the trick, you are certain, but perhaps there is another way.
You see a girl you are rather attracted to, but she refuses to go on a date with you. You consider rape, but somehow you feel there are other solutions to the problem.
Your slave is acting up again. He tried to escape two times last month and you swear he tried to poison the well. I just have beat some sense into him. What other solution is there?
I didn't ask what the alternative was for any of those things; I asked what the alternative is for government.
Coercion is cheap and easy. True cooperation and communication is hard.
The alternative to coercion is curiosity, communication, and cooperation. That is very difficult when you have to account for the time and effort people (read: those employed by the government) have to spend with each case.
On an individual basis, it works as an alternative, if the person doesn't choose to take the easy route.
So. The alternative exists, yet it can't be implemented. If it is implemented, it can only be a token implementation because it simply isn't feasible.
Talking on an internet forum dominated by nerds is cheap. Engaging in weak semantics and poorly construed arguments in easy. Taking a stand for what you believe in and leading by example is hard.
I heartily agree. I have already stated that I enjoy discussion for discussion's sake. My goal is to share ideas, and receive them. Cause you to question and investigate, cause me to question and investigate. Will I ever lead by example? Perhaps, as you say, it's quite difficult, and since I have a sense of self preservation rather frightening as well. Also, I don't want to be shot in the head. Which is what would happen if I stopped paying taxes and then defended myself with a weapon when a man in a blue uniform busts down my door and attempts to kidnap me.
You still haven't abandoned your condescending tone. Let me ask you this, if I don't feel that lawful government coercion is inherently immoral, are we at an impasse?
Is there any coercive action a government can do that you would not find immoral?
Is there any coercive action that an individual can do that you would not find immoral?
is there any coercive action you could/would do to me that you would find to be moral? Of course. Self defense being one of them. However..
Would you kidnap me and lock me in a cage if I refused to pay taxes? Or shoot me if I tried to defend myself?
If yes, then we are at an impasse, and nothing more can be discussed.
Again, nobody is forcing you to have a job. Nobody is forcing you to own property. Nobody is forcing you to buy things.
Taxes are use fees. You're using the police force. You're using the military. You're using the fire department. You're using the roads. You're clean water, food, air, and medicine.
You can even benefit from all of these things as a free rider. Nothing stopping you.
What the fuck that does even have to do with government? Guess what, we already have government and that shit still happens! Guess what happens, if we live and if he's caught? He goes to jail because he can't observe the rules which serve the mutual benefit of everyone!
He was responding to the post above his, which details the inevitable result of a) refusing to pay taxes and b) the police being sent to your house to arrest you after a certain amount of letters, phonecalls ect wondering where those darn taxes are.
Again, nobody is forcing you to have a job. Nobody is forcing you to own property. Nobody is forcing you to buy things.
Taxes are use fees. You're using the police force. You're using the military. You're using the fire department. You're using the roads. You're clean water, food, air, and medicine.
You can even benefit from all of these things as a free rider. Nothing stopping you.
Right, "taxes are theft" breaks down the moment you realize that you wouldn't be making the income being taxed in the first place without the government providing the security and maintenance of the society you're participating in.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
So you would freely use coercion to not pay taxes if you were able to.
A criminal busts down your door at home and attempts to kidnap you. You have a gun. What do you do?
A police officer breaking into your home to arrest you for not paying taxes isn't a criminal. You would be the criminal in that situation.
Precisely!
I am a criminal for making the choice not to support the current government's policies by direct action -- that is, not paying for it with my labor and the resources earned thereof. I may be imprisoned or shot, depending on my level of resistance for this 'crime'.
So you would freely use coercion to not pay taxes if you were able to.
A criminal busts down your door at home and attempts to kidnap you. You have a gun. What do you do?
A police officer breaking into your home to arrest you for not paying taxes isn't a criminal. You would be the criminal in that situation.
Precisely!
I am a criminal for making the choice not to support the current government's policies by direct action -- that is, not paying for it with my labor and the resources earned thereof. I may be imprisoned or shot, depending on my level of resistance for this 'crime'.
Is that okay?
It is until you can create another community elsewhere. Why do you think I bought up buying an island? Go crazy there, no-one will stop you. Just make sure you don't break any international laws in the process.
Let's assume that coercion is always wrong (I don't think it is, but I'll grant it to you for this hypothetical).
So... what's the alternative?
Apply this question to everyday activities.
You go to the grocery store. It does not carry the food item you want. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
You are a manager for a retail chain. You want your underlings to perform better and make more sales. It occurs to you to coerce. What's the alternative?
You are a teacher in a public school. The kids are getting out of hand. You could yell and maybe slap the kid around a little. That will do the trick, you are certain, but perhaps there is another way.
You see a girl you are rather attracted to, but she refuses to go on a date with you. You consider rape, but somehow you feel there are other solutions to the problem.
Your slave is acting up again. He tried to escape two times last month and you swear he tried to poison the well. I just have beat some sense into him. What other solution is there?
I didn't ask what the alternative was for any of those things; I asked what the alternative is for government.
Coercion is cheap and easy. True cooperation and communication is hard.
The alternative to coercion is curiosity, communication, and cooperation. That is very difficult when you have to account for the time and effort people (read: those employed by the government) have to spend with each case.
On an individual basis, it works as an alternative, if the person doesn't choose to take the easy route.
So. The alternative exists, yet it can't be implemented. If it is implemented, it can only be a token implementation because it simply isn't feasible.
Talking on an internet forum dominated by nerds is cheap. Engaging in weak semantics and poorly construed arguments in easy. Taking a stand for what you believe in and leading by example is hard.
I heartily agree. I have already stated that I enjoy discussion for discussion's sake. My goal is to share ideas, and receive them. Cause you to question and investigate, cause me to question and investigate. Will I ever lead by example? Perhaps, as you say, it's quite difficult, and since I have a sense of self preservation rather frightening as well. Also, I don't want to be shot in the head. Which is what would happen if I stopped paying taxes and then defended myself with a weapon when a man in a blue uniform busts down my door and attempts to kidnap me.
You still haven't abandoned your condescending tone. Let me ask you this, if I don't feel that lawful government coercion is inherently immoral, are we at an impasse?
Is there any coercive action a government can do that you would not find immoral?
Is there any coercive action that an individual can do that you would not find immoral?
is there any coercive action you could/would do to me that you would find to be moral? Of course. Self defense being one of them. However..
Would you kidnap me and lock me in a cage if I refused to pay taxes? Or shoot me if I tried to defend myself?
If yes, then we are at an impasse, and nothing more can be discussed.
If no, than debate can continue! Hooray.
That's a rather simplistic way to look at it. Is this really just about wanting to not pay taxes? If you just pay your taxes you won't get arrested, what's the big deal. If you don't like what your tax money is being spent on, there are mechanisms in place for you to let this be known and instigate change. You're looking at the enormously complex problem of the way modern governments work, saying "I don't like the way they handle this" and concluding that we should get rid of the whole thing. This is silly. People are becoming incredulous because you aren't acknowledging any of the advantages afforded by this system, which is frustrating.
You're benefiting from taxes, whether you want to or not, so you've got to pay. That's just basic fairness and economics. If you don't want to be part if it, quit your job, stop using the internet, public electricity, roads, etc. Oh, and stop talking to me, because my education was funded by coercive taxes. Buy a private island or move to Somalia or something. I don't care.
Behemoth on
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
As others have said, you are not obligated to pay taxes. You are, however, obligated to pay taxes if you use state funded resources.
Again, nobody is forcing you to have a job. Nobody is forcing you to own property. Nobody is forcing you to buy things.
Taxes are use fees. You're using the police force. You're using the military. You're using the fire department. You're using the roads. You're clean water, food, air, and medicine.
You can even benefit from all of these things as a free rider. Nothing stopping you.
Did I ask to use these services? Show me the contract I signed. Show me where I explicitly stated that I wished to support said institutions. I did not. Therefore it is not a choice. It cannot be a "fee" unless there is a contractual obligation to pay. There is not.
So you would freely use coercion to not pay taxes if you were able to.
A criminal busts down your door at home and attempts to kidnap you. You have a gun. What do you do?
A police officer breaking into your home to arrest you for not paying taxes isn't a criminal. You would be the criminal in that situation.
Precisely!
I am a criminal for making the choice not to support the current government's policies by direct action -- that is, not paying for it with my labor and the resources earned thereof. I may be imprisoned or shot, depending on my level of resistance for this 'crime'.
Is that okay?
You aren't solely responsible for the fruits of your labor unless you are living in a forest somewhere
And uh, you're posting online, on government subsidized internet, so there's that.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Again, nobody is forcing you to have a job. Nobody is forcing you to own property. Nobody is forcing you to buy things.
Taxes are use fees. You're using the police force. You're using the military. You're using the fire department. You're using the roads. You're clean water, food, air, and medicine.
You can even benefit from all of these things as a free rider. Nothing stopping you.
Did I ask to use these services? Show me the contract I signed. Show me where I explicitly stated that I wished to support said institutions. I did not. Therefore it is not a choice. It cannot be a "fee" unless there is a contractual obligation to pay. There is not.
Then stop using them. It's really that simple. I see plenty of people who don't rely on any of these things everyday. Guess what? They're homeless, unemployed, and poor.
Again, nobody is forcing you to have a job. Nobody is forcing you to own property. Nobody is forcing you to buy things.
Taxes are use fees. You're using the police force. You're using the military. You're using the fire department. You're using the roads. You're clean water, food, air, and medicine.
You can even benefit from all of these things as a free rider. Nothing stopping you.
Did I ask to use these services? Show me the contract I signed. Show me where I explicitly stated that I wished to support said institutions. I did not. Therefore it is not a choice. It cannot be a "fee" unless there is a contractual obligation to pay. There is not.
You don't need to sign anything, just live in a country. Of course, you could try Thanatos suggestion to live off the grid. It'll be difficult but it is an option.
Shurakai, do you think that homeless people are rounded up and put in jail for not paying taxes? Because, well, they're not. If you're not using any government services, they won't come after you.
Did I ask to use these services? Show me the contract I signed. Show me where I explicitly stated that I wished to support said institutions. I did not. Therefore it is not a choice. It cannot be a "fee" unless there is a contractual obligation to pay. There is not.
The simplest way of solving your problem would be for all the world to abolish immigration laws, so that you can freely move to wherever suits you best. Would this be enough for you?
So you would freely use coercion to not pay taxes if you were able to.
A criminal busts down your door at home and attempts to kidnap you. You have a gun. What do you do?
A police officer breaking into your home to arrest you for not paying taxes isn't a criminal. You would be the criminal in that situation.
Precisely!
I am a criminal for making the choice not to support the current government's policies by direct action -- that is, not paying for it with my labor and the resources earned thereof. I may be imprisoned or shot, depending on my level of resistance for this 'crime'.
Is that okay?
In this thought experiment do you even have any money printed by the government? Are you an employee of someone who does pay taxes on your labor and resources? Have you used infrastructure that the rest of the poor schmucks who do pay taxes have helped to create and/or maintain? I don't think they'd be to happy you're mooching off their hard work. They'd probably want to shun or remove you from all the sweet stuff they enjoy.
Luckily instead of burning it all down and starting for scratch we already have 'DROs' ready and willing and sanctioned by us to remove you (through coercion if you start pointing guns!) and make you "pay".
You should probably just fill out the 1040 and get some more money though.
So you would freely use coercion to not pay taxes if you were able to.
A criminal busts down your door at home and attempts to kidnap you. You have a gun. What do you do?
A police officer breaking into your home to arrest you for not paying taxes isn't a criminal. You would be the criminal in that situation.
Precisely!
I am a criminal for making the choice not to support the current government's policies by direct action -- that is, not paying for it with my labor and the resources earned thereof. I may be imprisoned or shot, depending on my level of resistance for this 'crime'.
Is that okay?
It is until you can create another community elsewhere. Why do you think I bought up buying an island? Go crazy there, no-one will stop you. Just make sure you don't break any international laws in the process.
So murder and kidnapping are a-ok with you, as long as the perpetrators are wearing a blue uniform? Awesome.
Again, nobody is forcing you to have a job. Nobody is forcing you to own property. Nobody is forcing you to buy things.
Taxes are use fees. You're using the police force. You're using the military. You're using the fire department. You're using the roads. You're clean water, food, air, and medicine.
You can even benefit from all of these things as a free rider. Nothing stopping you.
Did I ask to use these services? Show me the contract I signed. Show me where I explicitly stated that I wished to support said institutions. I did not. Therefore it is not a choice. It cannot be a "fee" unless there is a contractual obligation to pay. There is not.
You agreed to pay when you accepted work. You pay nothing if you earn nothing. You don't want to use all of that? Go live on your own, don't earn or spend currency and you're fine
So you would freely use coercion to not pay taxes if you were able to.
A criminal busts down your door at home and attempts to kidnap you. You have a gun. What do you do?
A police officer breaking into your home to arrest you for not paying taxes isn't a criminal. You would be the criminal in that situation.
Precisely!
I am a criminal for making the choice not to support the current government's policies by direct action -- that is, not paying for it with my labor and the resources earned thereof. I may be imprisoned or shot, depending on my level of resistance for this 'crime'.
Is that okay?
It is until you can create another community elsewhere. Why do you think I bought up buying an island? Go crazy there, no-one will stop you. Just make sure you don't break any international laws in the process.
So murder and kidnapping are a-ok with you, as long as the perpetrators are wearing a blue uniform? Awesome.
As long as they're sanctioned to enforce the law by the public, yes. Don't be a goose. What you're proposing, using public resources and not paying for them, is stealing. it has been generally agreed upon in societies for thousands of years that stealing is bad. Thus, you must be punished.
And believe it or not, there are moderate libertarians, even ones who are running for office, who are nowhere near the kind of anarcho-capitalists or whatever that often get equated with Libertarianism.
Moderate libertarians is a fairly useless term. What it boils down to is being for good government and against bad government where, by startlingly coincidence, good government aligns with things that I like and bad government matches up with things I don't like
It is when it's legal. There are exceptions, what you're condoning isn't one of them. You can't just murder soldiers or police for doing their jobs just because you don't feel like paying taxes or obeying international laws. That said, now I curious. What international laws do you think you'd have to break if your community had its own island paradise?
So you would freely use coercion to not pay taxes if you were able to.
A criminal busts down your door at home and attempts to kidnap you. You have a gun. What do you do?
So, we've managed to devolve to a statement where one of our forumers has advocated using violence against the federal government to prevent tax collection. This guy is going to end up on the news, and then we'll be the forum the reporters figure out he frequented and report as the first group to have a chance to stop his schizophrenia before he went on a killing spree.
Nice. Now try some activities where coercion is a reasonable thing, instead.
Someone runs out of your grocery store without paying. What's the alternative to coercion in this instance?
@Shurakai I'm actually pretty interested in the answers to the questions. Since, you know, this is pretty much the whole point.
Sure. Initiation of the use of force is justifed in the specific instance of self defense. Some philosophers extend this to personal property, which I am still dubious on, but lets name them 1-5..
1. The person gets away. *Or*, depending on circumstance, rejection by the community (unable to get a job, spouse, ect) which leads to exile.
1. Why does he need a job if he can just keep taking shit?
Has this been answered yet? Because I feel like this is the crux of the whole thread here, and I'd like a definitive answer.
Think of this as the Viking problem, or the Khan problem. Say your peaceful utopia survives and flourishes. How do you deal with raiders? We can even say they're completely non-violent, so that you don't get the self-defense excuse. What method do you use to stop them?
If your income is four figures a year or lower, the IRS will never, ever bother you
Simply earn less money and you can live free in America, I tell this to my brother all the time when he bitches about the poor getting food stamps and he has yet to give up his job designing software for state government agencies (isn't that fucking ironic).
Furthermore you are a hypocrite even using American currency. They say "Federal Reserve" notes on them, they aren't real money to you, why do you accept monopoly money? Just live on barter, you won't pay a dime in taxes. Oh you're too attached to your standard of living, well tough shit then, having a government is firmly attached to that standard of living.
override367 on
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Actually, you did sign an agreement when you began working. It's called a W-4.
Again, nobody is forcing you to have a job. Nobody is forcing you to own property. Nobody is forcing you to buy things.
Taxes are use fees. You're using the police force. You're using the military. You're using the fire department. You're using the roads. You're clean water, food, air, and medicine.
You can even benefit from all of these things as a free rider. Nothing stopping you.
Did I ask to use these services? Show me the contract I signed. Show me where I explicitly stated that I wished to support said institutions. I did not. Therefore it is not a choice. It cannot be a "fee" unless there is a contractual obligation to pay. There is not.
Did you get a job? Did you buy a house? Did you make a sales-taxed purchase?
Then yes, you absolutely asked to use these services. You even have written receipts.
Again, nobody is forcing you to have a job. Nobody is forcing you to own property. Nobody is forcing you to buy things.
Taxes are use fees. You're using the police force. You're using the military. You're using the fire department. You're using the roads. You're clean water, food, air, and medicine.
You can even benefit from all of these things as a free rider. Nothing stopping you.
Did I ask to use these services? Show me the contract I signed. Show me where I explicitly stated that I wished to support said institutions. I did not. Therefore it is not a choice. It cannot be a "fee" unless there is a contractual obligation to pay. There is not.
I would consider this to be the first even moderately compelling argument you have made for your case. By even existing, you are bound by the social contract that other people created in the past. There are benefits to this social contract, but you did not ask for it nor were you asked to be involved in it.
That being said, I think you should take a closer look at the cost-benefit analysis of the way things are right now. You get clean water and air, safe food and medicine, roads for travel and commerce, the safety of being a country that is highly unlikely to be invaded, and many other benefits including a common currency so that we don't have to use a barter system. The cost is paying your taxes like everybody else.
Now if the existing social contract did not exist, where would you be? Not somewhere where I would want to live, based off of historical precedent such as the Gilded Age. Even some of the nonsense that corporations get away with right now is ridiculous, I certainly would be pretty hesitant to remove the existing government constraints on pollution and the like.
It is not a simple thing, but in theory you do have the ability to opt out of the system entirely by living off the grid. By not choosing to live out in the wilderness that would imply to me that there are some things that you do indeed like about the current system. If you can identify what those things are, you can work to reform the rest of the system to be more to your liking, and if you can get enough support you can make that reality. Far from easy, but better than trying to start over and hope that everybody is nice to everybody else.
Shurakai, do you think that homeless people are rounded up and put in jail for not paying taxes? Because, well, they're not. If you're not using any government services, they won't come after you.
The government doesn't care about the money it's not losing! . (edit: blah, hooray for dyslexia.)
Anywho, all these questions and answers were just to lead you guys through the process of making it personal, to bring into question your own moral compass. I don't agree that by simply existing in a civilization, I am suddenly and explicitly burdened with the responsibility to support it. If you do, and you are willing to imprison and perhaps kill me if I do not, than I would start to reexamine the basis of your ethical arguments. That's really all there is to it, guys.
I am going to live in this society. I am not going to flee to the hills. That's just another form of imprisonment.. but that particular version is voluntary. I will continue to ask questions about the basic nature of this system, and you guys should too. Thank you for the excellent talk. I am not the sole arbiter of this viewpoint, so if you are curious, just look around, and try not to accuse people of being insane. It's rather.. distasteful.
No one will have perfect answers, I fear. But that's why you are here, isn't it! Perhaps we shall find some good answers, in time.
Ciao!
Shurakai on
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Some homeless people who live in NYC make twice my salary and don't pay taxes on any of it.
Shurakai, do you think that homeless people are rounded up and put in jail for not paying taxes? Because, well, they're not. If you're not using any government services, they won't come after you.
The government doesn't care about the money it's not making! .
Anywho, all these questions and answers were just to lead you guys through the process of making it personal, to bring into question your own moral compass. I don't agree that by simply existing in a civilization, I am suddenly and explicitly burdened with the responsibility to support it. If you do, and you are willing to imprison and perhaps kill me if I do not, than I would start to reexamine the basis of your ethical arguments. That's really all there is to it, guys.
You're not! That's what I meant! You can exist in society as a as a poor person and the government won't give two shits whether you pay taxes or not. That's the reality. By participating in certain aspects of society, you freely enter contracts that place these burdens on you. You don't have a right to a job where your income isn't taxed. I mean, if you can find one, good on ya, but there's no impetus on society to provide one.
I've had things stolen from me. The person who stole from me never turned around and gave me a receipt and access to a bunch of other things. Whether I put them all to use personally or not, the return on investment (gleefully willing or not) is MASSIVE.
I'm not an American, but I am Canadian, and despite the corruption, incompetence, arrogance and general shenanigans found within my government over the years, I am fine with paying my share of taxes. I'd prefer if richer individuals and corporations paid their fair share (I don't believe we have it as bad as the US does in terms of disparity, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't present), I wouldn't mind paying less if the aforementioned led to having equal or better social services than we do now without my $X, but for now I put in what they ask and benefit in countless tangible and intangible ways.
There is plenty of room to make things better. "Let's burn the whole thing to the ground!" seems... excessive.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Shurakai, do you think that homeless people are rounded up and put in jail for not paying taxes? Because, well, they're not. If you're not using any government services, they won't come after you.
The government doesn't care about the money it's not losing! . (edit: blah, hooray for dyslexia.)
Anywho, all these questions and answers were just to lead you guys through the process of making it personal, to bring into question your own moral compass. I don't agree that by simply existing in a civilization, I am suddenly and explicitly burdened with the responsibility to support it. If you do, and you are willing to imprison and perhaps kill me if I do not, than I would start to reexamine the basis of your ethical arguments. That's really all there is to it, guys.
I am going to live in this society. I am not going to flee to the hills. That's just another form of imprisonment.. but that particular version is voluntary. I will continue to ask questions about the basic nature of this system, and you guys should too. Thank you for the excellent talk. I am not the sole arbiter of this viewpoint, so if you are curious, just look around, and try not to accuse people of being insane. It's rather.. distasteful.
No one will have perfect answers, I fear. But that's why you are here, isn't it! Perhaps we shall find some good answers, in time.
Ciao!
You have no responsibility to support a civilization by existing, you have a responsibility to support it by participating. If you exist the system will (to varying degrees) support you. If you participate you need to join in. You voluntarily got a job, now you can voluntarily pay your taxes, otherwise the community will coerce you!
No one will have perfect answers, I fear. But that's why you are here, isn't it! Perhaps we shall find some good answers, in time.
Can you please stop pretending that your ignorance is anything but intentional? Or that asking questions that everyone else knows the answer to is somehow enlightening? Thanks.
Posts
Talking on an internet forum dominated by nerds is cheap. Engaging in weak semantics and poorly construed arguments in easy. Taking a stand for what you believe in and leading by example is hard.
You still haven't abandoned your condescending tone. Let me ask you this, if I don't feel that lawful government coercion is inherently immoral, are we at an impasse?
Is there any coercive action a government can do that you would not find immoral?
Is there any coercive action that an individual can do that you would not find immoral?
It's just a substantial improvement over nothing.
I heartily agree. I have already stated that I enjoy discussion for discussion's sake. My goal is to share ideas, and receive them. Cause you to question and investigate, cause me to question and investigate. Will I ever lead by example? Perhaps, as you say, it's quite difficult, and since I have a sense of self preservation rather frightening as well. Also, I don't want to be shot in the head. Which is what would happen if I stopped paying taxes and then defended myself with a weapon when a man in a blue uniform busts down my door and attempts to kidnap me.
is there any coercive action you could/would do to me that you would find to be moral? Of course. Self defense being one of them. However..
Would you kidnap me and lock me in a cage if I refused to pay taxes? Or shoot me if I tried to defend myself?
If yes, then we are at an impasse, and nothing more can be discussed.
If no, than debate can continue! Hooray.
A criminal busts down your door at home and attempts to kidnap you. You have a gun. What do you do?
Taxes are use fees. You're using the police force. You're using the military. You're using the fire department. You're using the roads. You're clean water, food, air, and medicine.
You can even benefit from all of these things as a free rider. Nothing stopping you.
A police officer breaking into your home to arrest you for not paying taxes isn't a criminal. You would be the criminal in that situation.
He was responding to the post above his, which details the inevitable result of a) refusing to pay taxes and b) the police being sent to your house to arrest you after a certain amount of letters, phonecalls ect wondering where those darn taxes are.
Right, "taxes are theft" breaks down the moment you realize that you wouldn't be making the income being taxed in the first place without the government providing the security and maintenance of the society you're participating in.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Precisely!
I am a criminal for making the choice not to support the current government's policies by direct action -- that is, not paying for it with my labor and the resources earned thereof. I may be imprisoned or shot, depending on my level of resistance for this 'crime'.
Is that okay?
It is until you can create another community elsewhere. Why do you think I bought up buying an island? Go crazy there, no-one will stop you. Just make sure you don't break any international laws in the process.
That's a rather simplistic way to look at it. Is this really just about wanting to not pay taxes? If you just pay your taxes you won't get arrested, what's the big deal. If you don't like what your tax money is being spent on, there are mechanisms in place for you to let this be known and instigate change. You're looking at the enormously complex problem of the way modern governments work, saying "I don't like the way they handle this" and concluding that we should get rid of the whole thing. This is silly. People are becoming incredulous because you aren't acknowledging any of the advantages afforded by this system, which is frustrating.
You're benefiting from taxes, whether you want to or not, so you've got to pay. That's just basic fairness and economics. If you don't want to be part if it, quit your job, stop using the internet, public electricity, roads, etc. Oh, and stop talking to me, because my education was funded by coercive taxes. Buy a private island or move to Somalia or something. I don't care.
Did I ask to use these services? Show me the contract I signed. Show me where I explicitly stated that I wished to support said institutions. I did not. Therefore it is not a choice. It cannot be a "fee" unless there is a contractual obligation to pay. There is not.
You aren't solely responsible for the fruits of your labor unless you are living in a forest somewhere
And uh, you're posting online, on government subsidized internet, so there's that.
Then stop using them. It's really that simple. I see plenty of people who don't rely on any of these things everyday. Guess what? They're homeless, unemployed, and poor.
You don't need to sign anything, just live in a country. Of course, you could try Thanatos suggestion to live off the grid. It'll be difficult but it is an option.
The simplest way of solving your problem would be for all the world to abolish immigration laws, so that you can freely move to wherever suits you best. Would this be enough for you?
In this thought experiment do you even have any money printed by the government? Are you an employee of someone who does pay taxes on your labor and resources? Have you used infrastructure that the rest of the poor schmucks who do pay taxes have helped to create and/or maintain? I don't think they'd be to happy you're mooching off their hard work. They'd probably want to shun or remove you from all the sweet stuff they enjoy.
Luckily instead of burning it all down and starting for scratch we already have 'DROs' ready and willing and sanctioned by us to remove you (through coercion if you start pointing guns!) and make you "pay".
You should probably just fill out the 1040 and get some more money though.
So murder and kidnapping are a-ok with you, as long as the perpetrators are wearing a blue uniform? Awesome.
You agreed to pay when you accepted work. You pay nothing if you earn nothing. You don't want to use all of that? Go live on your own, don't earn or spend currency and you're fine
As long as they're sanctioned to enforce the law by the public, yes. Don't be a goose. What you're proposing, using public resources and not paying for them, is stealing. it has been generally agreed upon in societies for thousands of years that stealing is bad. Thus, you must be punished.
Moderate libertarians is a fairly useless term. What it boils down to is being for good government and against bad government where, by startlingly coincidence, good government aligns with things that I like and bad government matches up with things I don't like
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
It is when it's legal. There are exceptions, what you're condoning isn't one of them. You can't just murder soldiers or police for doing their jobs just because you don't feel like paying taxes or obeying international laws. That said, now I curious.
What international laws do you think you'd have to break if your community had its own island paradise?
So, we've managed to devolve to a statement where one of our forumers has advocated using violence against the federal government to prevent tax collection. This guy is going to end up on the news, and then we'll be the forum the reporters figure out he frequented and report as the first group to have a chance to stop his schizophrenia before he went on a killing spree.
Has this been answered yet? Because I feel like this is the crux of the whole thread here, and I'd like a definitive answer.
Think of this as the Viking problem, or the Khan problem. Say your peaceful utopia survives and flourishes. How do you deal with raiders? We can even say they're completely non-violent, so that you don't get the self-defense excuse. What method do you use to stop them?
Simply earn less money and you can live free in America, I tell this to my brother all the time when he bitches about the poor getting food stamps and he has yet to give up his job designing software for state government agencies (isn't that fucking ironic).
Furthermore you are a hypocrite even using American currency. They say "Federal Reserve" notes on them, they aren't real money to you, why do you accept monopoly money? Just live on barter, you won't pay a dime in taxes. Oh you're too attached to your standard of living, well tough shit then, having a government is firmly attached to that standard of living.
Then yes, you absolutely asked to use these services. You even have written receipts.
I would consider this to be the first even moderately compelling argument you have made for your case. By even existing, you are bound by the social contract that other people created in the past. There are benefits to this social contract, but you did not ask for it nor were you asked to be involved in it.
That being said, I think you should take a closer look at the cost-benefit analysis of the way things are right now. You get clean water and air, safe food and medicine, roads for travel and commerce, the safety of being a country that is highly unlikely to be invaded, and many other benefits including a common currency so that we don't have to use a barter system. The cost is paying your taxes like everybody else.
Now if the existing social contract did not exist, where would you be? Not somewhere where I would want to live, based off of historical precedent such as the Gilded Age. Even some of the nonsense that corporations get away with right now is ridiculous, I certainly would be pretty hesitant to remove the existing government constraints on pollution and the like.
It is not a simple thing, but in theory you do have the ability to opt out of the system entirely by living off the grid. By not choosing to live out in the wilderness that would imply to me that there are some things that you do indeed like about the current system. If you can identify what those things are, you can work to reform the rest of the system to be more to your liking, and if you can get enough support you can make that reality. Far from easy, but better than trying to start over and hope that everybody is nice to everybody else.
The government doesn't care about the money it's not losing!
Anywho, all these questions and answers were just to lead you guys through the process of making it personal, to bring into question your own moral compass. I don't agree that by simply existing in a civilization, I am suddenly and explicitly burdened with the responsibility to support it. If you do, and you are willing to imprison and perhaps kill me if I do not, than I would start to reexamine the basis of your ethical arguments. That's really all there is to it, guys.
I am going to live in this society. I am not going to flee to the hills. That's just another form of imprisonment.. but that particular version is voluntary. I will continue to ask questions about the basic nature of this system, and you guys should too. Thank you for the excellent talk. I am not the sole arbiter of this viewpoint, so if you are curious, just look around, and try not to accuse people of being insane. It's rather.. distasteful.
No one will have perfect answers, I fear. But that's why you are here, isn't it! Perhaps we shall find some good answers, in time.
Ciao!
You're not! That's what I meant! You can exist in society as a as a poor person and the government won't give two shits whether you pay taxes or not. That's the reality. By participating in certain aspects of society, you freely enter contracts that place these burdens on you. You don't have a right to a job where your income isn't taxed. I mean, if you can find one, good on ya, but there's no impetus on society to provide one.
I've had things stolen from me. The person who stole from me never turned around and gave me a receipt and access to a bunch of other things. Whether I put them all to use personally or not, the return on investment (gleefully willing or not) is MASSIVE.
I'm not an American, but I am Canadian, and despite the corruption, incompetence, arrogance and general shenanigans found within my government over the years, I am fine with paying my share of taxes. I'd prefer if richer individuals and corporations paid their fair share (I don't believe we have it as bad as the US does in terms of disparity, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't present), I wouldn't mind paying less if the aforementioned led to having equal or better social services than we do now without my $X, but for now I put in what they ask and benefit in countless tangible and intangible ways.
There is plenty of room to make things better. "Let's burn the whole thing to the ground!" seems... excessive.
You have no responsibility to support a civilization by existing, you have a responsibility to support it by participating. If you exist the system will (to varying degrees) support you. If you participate you need to join in. You voluntarily got a job, now you can voluntarily pay your taxes, otherwise the community will coerce you!
Can you please stop pretending that your ignorance is anything but intentional? Or that asking questions that everyone else knows the answer to is somehow enlightening? Thanks.