Are Taxes Justified?

Sorry may have miss worded my statement, but what I'm saying is, the guy who's house was on fire, didn't pay the insurance, so they let his house burn. I disagree with what you said on the insurance company getting a lifelong customer, because as soon they put his fire out, why should anyone else in the town pay the insurance when they are still going to put out the fire.

Because he might not be so lucky next time.

Look to me this just smacks of you haven't lived in the real world.

Businesses give out freebies all the time to help keep customers. In fact by giving a customer something for free he/she is more likely to buy something. This is a well known marketing tactic.

If I ran a breakdown assistance insurance service for example and someone called me up who didn't have breakdown insurance would I a) tell them to go fuck themsleves, or b) send a car out and gain a new customer?

It's so obvious it's stupid.

As to those questioning the definition of slavery. Here it is from the popular english dictionaries:
1. Slavery: the state of being a slave.
2. Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Are you the legal property of your government? The tests: can you leave without their permission? No. Can you own property without their permission? No.

Citizenship is a form of slavery.

Let me explain it in another way:

I'm (quite literally) starting a pig farm. When I farm pigs I provide them shelter, food, medical care. Does this mean I am a benevolent force for pigs? No, I am going to sell them to have their heads chopped off and turned into pork sausages. The same goes for tax farms. Even supposing the government did provide you good quality education, healthcare and roads (it doesn't) that doesn't make it a benevolent institution. The fact remains that to whichever tax farm (or 'country') you are born, you owe something on the order of 40% of your life's earnings to them from the second you are born. If you refuse to pay they will put you in prison. If you try to leave without their permission they will put you in prison.

A child could see that this is slavery. The real question is, why can't you?

 

[Imagine]

Because he might not be so lucky next time.

Look to me this just smacks of you haven't lived in the real world.

Businesses give out freebies all the time to help keep customers. In fact by giving a customer something for free he/she is more likely to buy something. This is a well known marketing tactic.

If I ran a breakdown assistance insurance service for example and someone called me up who didn't have breakdown insurance would I a) tell them to go fuck themsleves, or b) send a car out and gain a new customer?

It's so obvious it's stupid.

As to those questioning the definition of slavery. Here it is from the popular english dictionaries:
1. Slavery: the state of being a slave.
2. Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Are you the legal property of your government? The tests: can you leave without their permission? No. Can you own property without their permission? No.

Citizenship is a form of slavery.

Let me explain it in another way:

I'm (quite literally) starting a pig farm. When I farm pigs I provide them shelter, food, medical care. Does this mean I am a benevolent force for pigs? No, I am going to sell them to have their heads chopped off and turned into pork sausages. The same goes for tax farms. Even supposing the government did provide you good quality education, healthcare and roads (it doesn't) that doesn't make it a benevolent institution. The fact remains that to whichever tax farm (or 'country') you are born, you owe something on the order of 40% of your life's earnings to them from the second you are born. If you refuse to pay they will put you in prison. If you try to leave without their permission they will put you in prison.

A child could see that this is slavery. The real question is, why can't you?

I don't see it as slavery because the benefits I get are worth the taxes I have to pay. Nobody likes paying taxes, but its a give and take, as Swan said. And I'd much rather pay taxes and get the benefits of a police force, fire department, regulatory agencies, not have to pay for roads, and so on than not do so.

Besides, this "can you leave without their permission" or "own property without their permission" isn't wholly accurate. Its not so much that you have to ask "can I buy this house" rather than you have to tell the government that you bought the house so that they can keep records of it. (Same with leaving the country). And these records benefit everybody - records of the house are useful for mail, lawsuits, arrests if you do something like murder someone, etc. Records of who is in the country are useful for foreign protection/extradition and so on. There is a reason these things are kept track of.

But anyways, I have a question then. Who benefits from the government. If nobody benefits from it, why is it still around? Slavery involves a party that benefits from the work of the other... you can't have slavery with no benefactors. (And if a slave owner makes a slave just split rocks, he's deriving utility from it, or he'd rather make the slave do something else.)

 

[Imagine]

Wall of slavishly repeated statist maxims.

Ok I'll try respond briefly.



1. Not all roads carry 100's of thousands of people.
2. There are hundreds of private toll and railways on private land which already manage just fine.
3. The whole point of the free market is to have competition so that you can use the competitor's road if your main route breaks.
4. Point 3 is how the internet works, replace road with internet pipe.

It isn't really efficient to have two roads side by side to go to the same place, is it? Competition in something that is now free isn't really a good thing.

Bunch of shit. Look up the history of common law, particularly torts. We already have/had a working legal system which was vastly superior to the central planning 'zoning' nonsense we have now.

Superior is subjective.

Neither do I. Let me accurately portray the stability of a US government bond:

1. The US produces nearly nothing and buys most of its consumer and capital goods from china.
2. US government bonds are backed by the prommise to steal future US dollars from the future wages of US workers.
3. US produces nothing, and therefore taking US dollars from US workers to pay for chinese goods is paying for something with nothing.
4. US bonds are completely worthless.

Bonds are priced by the market, not by you deciding they have zero inherent value. People are willing to pay money/goods/labor for them, therefore they are not worthless. The United States is currently politically stable, and therefore people will be willing to pay money/goods/labor for them for the foreseeable future, so they are also stable.

As a side note:
1). The United states has a massive GDP, so it doesn't produce 'nothing'.
2). Not only that, even if it did produce 'nothing', it has enough force to really do whatever the hell it wants.

Slavery is putting positive legal obligations on people according to the place and or time of their birth. Taxation is most definitely slavery. Further US 'citizens' are required to file US tax returns for 8 years after they immigrate to another tax farm / "country"/

It is a legal obligation because if it were a social obligation, as it should be, we'd have people like you who don't fulfill these obligations, and therefore screw the rest of us. If we are able to increase the wellbeing of everybody by just slightly decreasing the wellbeing of one person, then I'm all for it. As for filing tax returns, that is just if they plan on returning. They can renounce their citizenship if they wish.

Strawman argument. Roads were initially built by Rome therefore the road I put through my property today is thanks to Rome?

Undersea and under land cables are not cheaper than roads.

Further, corporations themselves are just government created entities, you are still not talking about the free market.

No. The point is that without government funding, the internet would not exist. Roads have been around for much longer and really crude roads exist in nature as cow paths. Nothing of the sort exists to parallel the internet.

So what you are saying is I can still kick someone out of my store because they are black or asian. In otherwords what you meant to write was "I agree".

No, there is a difference. You can kick somebody out of the story because they smell or because you don't like them. Not because they are black or asian. If they manage to prove that it is because they are black or asian (by examining many cases of this) then you can get arrested or forced to pay a fine. There is a distinction - the motivation here is just as important as what you actually do.

If stealing money from people to pay for a standing army that routinely murders and rapes people both domestically (police) and internationally (military) is a beneficial institution then I don't know what to tell you.

Police forces do not routinely murder and rape people, I don't know where you're getting your information. There is a huge amount of selection bias - you don't report 'normal' police forces. Only the occasional rape or murder is reported BECAUSE it is so rare. And you can hardly pin this on the United States, because you're going to have depraved people everywhere. Same goes for the military. Many of the 'murders' the military commit are in the sense of kill or be killed. The military also generally invades areas with governments that are committing horrible crimes against their people. Not only that, the US cannot control what every soldier does. They certainly don't tell them to "go rape people", and if a soldier is found to have done so, they are imprisoned.

As for stealing... the government isn't stealing my money. Of course I'd rather keep it, but I'm more than happy to give it to them in exchange for the services I receive.

The very reason you try so very very hard to justify the existence of the government and taxation is because you know it is plain flat out evil to steal, rape, murder and keep slaves. These are all the nearly exclusive domain of the government. For rape see: war rape.

No. No. No. I agree that it is evil to do all of those things, but I justify the existence of the government because they don't do any of them.

To have a society based on voluntary interaction instead of one based on the initiation of force, of course.

Ok. Suppose I want to interact with you then. I'll just grab my gun and a couple of my buddies and come take all of your pigs. Then I'll just move halfway across the country and you'll have no idea how to find me. Oh no! What will you do now? The government serves as a Leviathan, which is needed to make sure situations like these don't happen.

 

I don't see it as slavery because the benefits I get are worth the taxes I have to pay. Nobody likes paying taxes, but its a give and take, as Swan said. And I'd much rather pay taxes and get the benefits of a police force, fire department, regulatory agencies, not have to pay for roads, and so on than not do so.

If someone is taking money out of your pocket without consent, it is theft. If you don't pay it you will be fined, if you refuse to pay your property will be forcefully seized. If you defend your property you will be shot.

It doesn't matter what kind of bullshit services that they offer you, (all of which I think can be done better in a voluntary manner) it still remains theft.

Besides, this "can you leave without their permission" or "own property without their permission" isn't wholly accurate. Its not so much that you have to ask "can I buy this house" rather than you have to tell the government that you bought the house so that they can keep records of it.

Bullshit, you can neither own property without permission nor leave the country without permission. You have to do it in a very specific way under someone else's standards, and pay fines and additional taxes regardless of your consent in the matter. Sure a part of this is for records sake, but if you were to claim that was the primary reason you'd be mistaken.

Same with leaving the country). And these records benefit everybody - records of the house are useful for mail, lawsuits, arrests if you do something like murder someone, etc. Records of who is in the country are useful for foreign protection/extradition and so on. There is a reason these things are kept track of

There is a huge difference between census type documents and the clusterfuck that they put you through to own property or leave the country. They'll force you to pay them for the "privilege" of owning property on your own land.

But anyways, I have a question then. Who benefits from the government. If nobody benefits from it, why is it still around?

My argument is mainly a moral one, regardless of the outcome of government activities it is immoral to fund it with extortion. It is immoral for my money to be stolen from me and spent on things I don't agree with, etc. That isn't to say I don't think the free market and voluntary interaction is more practical however, because I think it is.

Your question is akin to saying "If Hitler is so bad, why is he still in office?"
"If murder is so bad, why do people still kill?"
etc.

The continued existence of something doesn't really mean anything..

Slavery involves a party that benefits from the work of the other...you can't have slavery with no benefactors.

What the hell lol...? No one benefits from it? Ever heard of corporations sponsoring political campaigns? Have you ever wondered why? The corporations become government sponsored monopolies essentially. Look at politicians investment portfolios. Look at government salaries.

(And if a slave owner makes a slave just split rocks, he's deriving utility from it, or he'd rather make the slave do something else.)

Why make the slaves split rocks these days though? Just let them make their own money, and just take it directly from their wallet!

I define slavery as involuntarily working for someone else. If you're not consenting to work for someone, you're a slave. It doesn't matter if you're forced to do back breaking labor, you're still not a free individual.

 

[Imagine]

If someone is taking money out of your pocket without consent, it is theft. If you don't pay it you will be fined, if you refuse to pay your property will be forcefully seized. If you defend your property you will be shot.

It doesn't matter what kind of bullshit services that they offer you, (all of which I think can be done better in a voluntary manner) it still remains theft.

Oh you're consenting - you're filling out your tax forms and everything.

Bullshit, you can neither own property without permission nor leave the country without permission. You have to do it in a very specific way under someone else's standards, and pay fines and additional taxes regardless of your consent in the matter. Sure a part of this is for records sake, but if you were to claim that was the primary reason you'd be mistaken.

There is a huge difference between census type documents and the clusterfuck that they put you through to own property or leave the country. They'll force you to pay them for the "privilege" of owning property on your own land.

Uh how many times have you been told "you cannot buy this" or "you cannot leave the country"? It is for record's sake, and for border control to make sure that no people which may jeopardize the safety of the general public can come into the US.

You're paying taxes on the land that you own. But why is owning land suddenly a right?

My argument is mainly a moral one, regardless of the outcome of government activities it is immoral to fund it with extortion. It is immoral for my money to be stolen from me and spent on things I don't agree with, etc. That isn't to say I don't think the free market and voluntary interaction is more practical however, because I think it is.

Your question is akin to saying "If Hitler is so bad, why is he still in office?"
"If murder is so bad, why do people still kill?"
etc.

Ugh... your money isn't stolen. It is taken and in return you are given other benefits that increase the overall benefit of everybody in the society instead of just you. I see nothing immoral with that.

My question isn't like that, because people were benefiting from Hitler being in office. Namely, most of Germany and Hitler himself.

If murder is so bad, why do people still kill? Because killing benefits the person doing it.

The continued existence of something doesn't really mean anything..

What the hell lol...? No one benefits from it? Ever heard of corporations sponsoring political campaigns? Have you ever wondered why? The corporations become government sponsored monopolies essentially. Look at politicians investment portfolios. Look at government salaries.

I'm trying to point out a contradiction. The very companies that you want to be reliant on to produce everything for you benefit from the government. Why would they get rid of it then? And if you get to the place where there is no government but the market is still populated by these companies, then isn't it in their interest to replace the government?

Why make the slaves split rocks these days though? Just let them make their own money, and just take it directly from their wallet!

I define slavery as involuntarily working for someone else. If you're not consenting to work for someone, you're a slave. It doesn't matter if you're forced to do back breaking labor, you're still not a free individual.

The split rocks was meant to be a counterexample to the "Well if you made a slave split rocks then nobody benefits". And NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO WORK. You can sit on your bum and do nothing all day if you wish. Hell, you won't even pay any taxes if you get rid of your home too! Are you still a slave then?

 

[Emperor Nero]

Okay, this thread brings up another interesting part of culture besides taxes and tax resistance. We have now passed the Godwin's Law threshold and the argument has ended up with a pointed Hitler comment. 4 pages is a pretty good run though.

 

Oh you're consenting - you're filling out your tax forms and everything.

??????????????????

Filling out a tax form under the threat of extreme consequences isn't consenting. I think you're just trolling at this point.

Uh how many times have you been told "you cannot buy this" or "you cannot leave the country"? It is for record's sake, and for border control to make sure that no people which may jeopardize the safety of the general public can come into the US.

Try buying land without government involvement, see what happens. They aren't just going to be like 'hey, just let us know you're living here!' No, they're going to make you file a fuckload of papers and every year rape you in the ass with taxes for living there.

Try leaving the country without the governments permission, it is literally impossible unless you charter a private jet or something and just skip town.

You're paying taxes on the land that you own. But why is owning land suddenly a right?

Why is owning land suddenly a right?

"Why is not being horribly tortured suddenly a right"

I don't necessarily believe in "rights" as you might believe in them, but I do believe someone taking your property if theft. If you think otherwise just wait until you get robbed and tell me how you think.

Ugh... your money isn't stolen. It is taken and in return you are given other benefits that increase the overall benefit of everybody in the society instead of just you. I see nothing immoral with that.

Money is extorted from you by the threat of violence. It cannot be considered anything but theft.

There are both arguably beneficial programs, as well as absolutely terrible corrupt any money wasting programs. Either way I refuse to fund them, if I want to be charitable I will without a gun to my head. They are illegitimate because they force compliance through violence.

The "benefit" is irrelevant. I can live on one kidney, if they take a saw to me and give one away that "benefits someone in society, not just me" but it is still immoral. My property was seized without my consent.

My question isn't like that, because people were benefiting from Hitler being in office. Namely, most of Germany and Hitler himself.

If murder is so bad, why do people still kill? Because killing benefits the person doing it.

Sigh...

So your point is government exists because someone benefits from it?

Thieves exist because they benefit from it.
Rapists exist because they benefit from it.
etc.

I will fight against all of the above.

I'm trying to point out a contradiction. The very companies that you want to be reliant on to produce everything for you benefit from the government. Why would they get rid of it then?

Without the governments monopoly on the initiation of force these companies are forced to compete with others without corrupt legislation and violence backing them up. They have to compete in the market for a quality product for a relatively low cost or they will go out of business. No government sanctioned monopolies, no bailouts. Corporations are the main benefactors of big government, they make a fucking killing compared to the social services that the government does provide.

And if you get to the place where there is no government but the market is still populated by these companies, then isn't it in their interest to replace the government?

If you cut cancer cells from someones body, might it re-grow? Obviously it is always possible, but it is best to fight against it. I don't see a voluntary society in my lifetime, but I will fight against illegitimate government programs until the day I die. Having a piece of paper saying basically "I do the fuck what I want" doesn't mean anything.

The split rocks was meant to be a counterexample to the "Well if you made a slave split rocks then nobody benefits". And NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO WORK. You can sit on your bum and do nothing all day if you wish. Hell, you won't even pay any taxes if you get rid of your home too! Are you still a slave then?

This is dumb. "You can sit on the street and die, see you're free to do that!" But if you actually want to make a living for yourself, you're working for the government. They'll take money directly from your paycheck without any form of actual agreement or understanding.

Okay, this thread brings up another interesting part of culture besides taxes and tax resistance. We have now passed the Godwin's Law threshold and the argument has ended up with a pointed Hitler comment. 4 pages is a pretty good run though.

Point being? It doesn't invalidate the argument at all, I was likening his comment to something more absurd. It could have been anything, but hitler being a "bad guy" is something generally people will be able to wrap their heads around.

 

[Fracesoaq]

Taxes are justified, if people want to use the roads and services provided by the government they are entitled to pay.

Shit ain't free and nothing will ever be free.

Hence the reason why they set up tax brackets.

 

[joj0r]

in my eyes yes, look where and how we live and compare that to a 3rd world country.

we have safety, we can call the police every time when something happens,
we can go to the doctor whenever we want, every must have a medical insurance, we don't have extra costs when we are ill etc.

teachers get paid by the state, kids learn something

ppl who don't have a job also get money by the state

it's a give and receive politic

 

[SuF]

Ex-post-facto fallacy and circular argument.

Roads cost a lot to build BECAUSE they are a monopoly of the state. To then claim that the state is needed because they cost a lot to build is a circular argument.

Rubbish. They cost a lot because they require specialized machinery, many man hours, and many raw materials. They also need maintenance every few years and to be completely redone every decade or two.

Healthcare and health insurance is a good example of this: http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html
Healthcare was cost effective and accessible when it was a free market. Then the government stepped in. Now it is one of the most costly and burdensome industries on the planet. Yet this very fact of high costs which is caused by the government is then used to justify the government's involvement.

More rubbish. Health care can charge whatever they want and people will pay. People's lives are on the line. Demand will remain very consistent even while price rises. The US health care system is much more free than other countries and pays much more than any other country yet does not have the best health care. Part of that is the insurance system but it obviously does not work.

If you buy landlocked land TODAY in the current state of things, no one is obligated to build you a road or give up an easement across their own land to allow you legal access to your property. Public roads do not currently solve access problems for private property. It is currently the responsibility of the purchaser of the land to ensure that he/she has legal access to his/her property before buying it. In the case of private roads this would take the form of ensuring a life-long contract with the local road company or membership in the body corporate if it is a body corporate.

In 99% of cases, your land will be on a public road where you have access. The government guarantees that there can be no discrimination in its use.

Housing estates often already have private road networks within them maintained by a body corporate. And apartment blocks have shared garages and lift facilities. The system of private ownership of last mile road infrastructure is already widely used. It doesn't require a very large leap of the imagination to extend it to cover other road systems.

I'm not sure how often this is used in the US, except for like gated communities.

What if supermarkets refused to serve blacks? Genocide on a massive level. Therefore the government needs to control the food supply? What a ridiculous argument.

Strawman plain and simple.

 

[LyMeX]

The question shouldn't be whether or not taxes are justified, but rather, is the gov't spending with our tax money justified? Seriously.

 

[SuF]

The question shouldn't be whether or not taxes are justified, but rather, is the gov't spending with our tax money justified? Seriously.

You can not assume the government is justified in using the threat of force and violence to take people's money without their consent.

 

[Mr Medic]

Taxes pay for everything you use. From the streets you drive on to the school you send your kids to. Street lights aren't free and neither are snow trucks during the winter.

 

[SuF]

Taxes pay for everything you use. From the streets you drive on to the school you send your kids to. Street lights aren't free and neither are snow trucks during the winter.

Not everything and why can't people pay private companies for those services?

 

[Logic]

Pay taxes so the bad people with guns can't come to rob you and if you don't pay taxes then the government will come and rob you + throw you in a rapecage. I'd say it's about time to cut the government.

 

[Emperor Nero]

Not everything and why can't people pay private companies for those services?

This, partially.

Government is inefficient at providing some things, but certain things are better left to some sort of governing body.

 

[Logic]

This, partially.

Government is inefficient at providing MOST things, but certain things are better left to some sort of governing body.

Fixed*

 

[SuF]

Fixed*

Like what?

 

[Logic]

Like what?

How about you say at what the government is more efficient than a private company is/would be (without the threat of being thrown into a rapecage).

 

[Imagine]

How about you say at what the government is more efficient than a private company is/would be (without the threat of being thrown into a rapecage).

Sure -- basic research, for example. (By that I mean fundamental research -- researching electricity, etc. Stuff that doesn't provide an immediate/obvious product that could be sold).

Education. The only reason a private company would take it upon themselves is if it were a for-profit school. Which, as we can see from many existing examples (U of Phoenix is the first one that comes to mind), is an absolutely shitty idea. (Because UPhoenix and all of the other for-profits are horrible, in case that wasn't clear).

Zoning/regulations etc. No profit to be made unless you're selling stuff to the highest bidder. Self-explanatory.

Penal system (Jails, etc). We already have private jails, and they've been accused of being deceitful in order to keep prisoners longer and thus keep the jail fuller to make more money. (Being deceitful as in punishing behavior, etc).

Need I go on? Your turn now.