News No representation without taxation

[jaap de vries]

I will soon move to Boston after living in Florida and Texas, Respectively. I was a little perturbed that I will have to pay state taxes. This was, until I found out the public school system in MA was ranked #1 and Texas and Florida #33 and #39, respectively [1]. I seem to me that the money is well spent.

Question, to those small government low taxes folks out there. Under which circumstances would it be OK for you to pay taxes and for you to be at peace with it?

Source:
[1] http://www.afromerica.com/knowledge/education/public/schoolranks.php

 

[Pengwuino]

You're making your conclusion based off a single "variable", taxation. If you immediately look at California's ranking (which I find hard to believe... sometimes), your conclusion doesn't make too much sense. Plus you're conclusion is off a single piece of anecdotal evidence.

 

[jaap de vries]

You're making your conclusion based off a single "variable", taxation. If you immediately look at California's ranking (which I find hard to believe... sometimes), your conclusion doesn't make too much sense. Plus you're conclusion is off a single piece of anecdotal evidence.

Although you could rightfully so accuse me of thinking, maybe, too linearly. I think there is a correlation between the quality of a school system in a state and the money that people are willing to pay for it.

So the original question remains

 

[Oscar Wilde]

I will soon move to Boston after living in Florida and Texas, Respectively. I was a little perturbed that I will have to pay state taxes. This was, until I found out the public school system in MA was ranked #1 and Texas and Florida #33 and #39, respectively [1]. I seem to me that the money is well spent.

Question, to those small government low taxes folks out there. Under which circumstances would it be OK for you to pay taxes and for you to be at peace with it?

Source:
[1] http://www.afromerica.com/knowledge/education/public/schoolranks.php

It seems as though your source was from 2004. As I am having trouble finding state/local tax burdens for the fiscal year of 2004, I have used the closest I could find (2005)--> http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbystate2005/. Looking at these numbers, I find your premise to be erroneous for a few reasons. First, the simple existence of taxes does not ensure the quality of the public schooling. There are many other factors, though your conclusion may appear "reasonable" or logical.

Second, Massachuesetts is ranked #32 in state/local tax burdens among the other 49 states. It is clear that the quality of public schooling is not proportional to the tax rates of the state. Though Hawaii was ranked third among other states for state/local tax burden , the state is ranked #42 (according to your source) for quality of public schooling.

I am perfectly fine with paying taxes, so long as the dollars go towards a worthwhile cause. Every citizen has a limited duty. However, I have problems with an increased tax burden due to government taking on failed businesses and other similar reasons.

 

[Moridin]

From the perspective of an anarcho-capitalist, taxation is always immoral. You don't really "pay" taxes, money is simply stolen from you with the threat of violence. Any form of "taxation" that is voluntary, however, seems just fine from such a perspective.

 

[russ_watters]

I will soon move to Boston after living in Florida and Texas, Respectively. I was a little perturbed that I will have to pay state taxes. This was, until I found out the public school system in MA was ranked #1 and Texas and Florida #33 and #39, respectively [1]. I seem to me that the money is well spent.

When you say "state taxes", what taxes are you talking about? Income tax? Sales tax? Texas has a higher sales tax rate than MA. In either case, the largest fraction of school funding isn't state money, it's local property taxes.

http://www.investintexasschools.org/schoolfunding/current.php

What's more, it stands to reason that education quailty depends on funding and since funding depends mostly on state and local taxes and state and local tax revenues depend on the wealth/prosperity of the residents, you have a self-perpetuating school quality problem in low-prosperity states. In other words, MA doesn't have better schools because it has higher taxes (the taxes are not much higher), it has better schools because it has richer people living there.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You don't really "pay" taxes, money is simply stolen from you with the threat of violence.

Yeah, but unlike most thieves, this one runs a sewer line to my house. I'll take the good with the bad.

 

[jaap de vries]

What's more, it stands to reason that education quailty depends on funding and since funding depends mostly on state and local taxes and state and local tax revenues depend on the wealth/prosperity of the residents, you have a self-perpetuating school quality problem in low-prosperity states. In other words, MA doesn't have better schools because it has higher taxes (the taxes are not much higher), it has better schools because it has richer people living there.

Good point Russ. What in your opinion can we do to revere this trend?

 

[D H]

f you immediately look at California's ranking (which I find hard to believe... sometimes)

One factor is illegal immigration. The four states with the greatest proportion of illegal immigrants are California (6%), Arizona (4.4%), Texas (4.3%), and Nevada (3.9%). Those states rankings: 43, 48, 33, and 49, respectively.

 

[mheslep]

Yeah, but unlike most thieves, this one runs a sewer line to my house. I'll take the good with the bad.

True for the average snatch and grab punk, but organized crime has a long history of providing 'protection' in return for its arm breaking collections.

 

[mheslep]

...

What's more, it stands to reason that education quality depends on funding ...

Perhaps in very non-linear way. District of Columbia schools have one of the highest spending per student ratios in the country and some of the worst outcomes.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps in very non-linear way. District of Columbia schools have one of the highest spending per student ratios in the country and some of the worst outcomes.

Perhaps you have it backwards: there is a linear association with the occasional anomaly. DC is a highly unusual case.

Still, it is probably also true that the association is only partly about the money. The money derived from tax revenue also tells you about the quality of the parents.

 

[mheslep]

Perhaps you have it backwards: there is a linear association with the occasional anomaly. DC is a highly unusual case.

Still, it is probably also true that the association is only partly about the money. The money derived from tax revenue also tells you about the quality of the parents.

I dunno. DC may be an outlier in the US, but according to this
http://edpro.stanford.edu/hanushek/admin/pages/files/uploads/HESEDU2014-1.pdf , page 21, figure 3
we're the highest spender in the world per capita on education, and the US certainly is (EDIT!) NOT tops in outcome. I would hazard that outcome/spending is linear until some minimum figure, and then tails off.

 

[Moridin]

Yeah, but unlike most thieves, this one runs a sewer line to my house. I'll take the good with the bad.

But what happens when the trillions of dollars that the government have stolen goes to fund horrendous wars in countries far away?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

But what happens when the trillions of dollars that the government have stolen goes to fund horrendous wars in countries far away?

Then you know you ought to vote for someone else?

 

[BoomBoom]

True for the average snatch and grab punk, but organized crime has a long history of providing 'protection' in return for its arm breaking collections.

So maybe we should just do away with ALL taxation then and dismantle our military?

 

[drankin]

So maybe we should just do away with ALL taxation then and dismantle our military?

What about universal healthcare? Maybe we can convince the medical field to go pro-bono?

 

[mheslep]

So maybe we should just do away with ALL taxation then and dismantle our military?

Why would you want to do that?

 

[BoomBoom]

Why would you want to do that?

I don't...I have absolutely no issue with paying taxes.

That was in response to the comparison of taxes to stealing (which is absurd) and where you stated: "organized crime has a long history of providing 'protection' in return for its arm breaking collections".

It seemed as if you were making the comparison, so I rolled with it.

 

[mheslep]

I don't...I have absolutely no issue with paying taxes.

No issue? None? Surely you mean to qualify that, as you wouldn't want to pay, say, 100% taxes, or you might have an issue if the government decided to fund the mheslep program for $1 trillion or so?

That was in response to the comparison of taxes to stealing (which is absurd) and where you stated: "organized crime has a long history of providing 'protection' in return for its arm breaking collections".

It seemed as if you were making the comparison, so I rolled with it.

The point: if some group takes your money and along the way happens to do you some service (which you may/may not need) that may, or may not be a good thing. It may be benevolent and unavoidable, but it is almost certain to incur waste, mistakes, and unintended consequences. Thus a reasonable philosophy is reduce the process (government) to its absolute minimums.

 

[russ_watters]

No issue? None? Surely you mean to qualify that, as you wouldn't want to pay, say, 100% taxes, or you might have an issue if the government decided to fund the mheslep program for $1 trillion or so?

You might want to try to avoid reading past what was said. I also have no issue with paying taxes. The concept of paying taxes. Particular tax issues can be good or bad, but the claim previously made was that taxation, in general, is stealing. That's what is being countered with the quoted statement.

The point: if some group takes your money and along the way happens to do you some service (which you may/may not need) that may, or may not be a good thing. It may be benevolent and unavoidable, but it is almost certain to incur waste, mistakes, and unintended consequences. Thus a reasonable philosophy is reduce the process (government) to its absolute minimums.

Agreed. But that doesn't have anything to do with Moridin's post.

 

[BoomBoom]

No issue? None? Surely you mean to qualify that, as you wouldn't want to pay, say, 100% taxes, or you might have an issue if the government decided to fund the mheslep program for $1 trillion or so?

I didn't necessarily appreciate trillions of dollars spent on the Iraq war, but that is a different issue...that is how my tax dollars are spent, which is a separate issue from the concept of paying taxes. My tax dollars go towards the government to "manage" the needs of our society, for the benefit of all. IMO it is money well spent. For example, I know that most of my property taxes go towards funding public schools and I have no kids, but I still have no problem with it because it is for the greater good that the children are educated.

So I might be against funding your mheslep program, but then I would just try and vote the guy who funded it out of office...not claim the government was stealing my money to fund it. But who knows, I might actually be in favor of funding your program!

The point: if some group takes your money and along the way happens to do you some service (which you may/may not need) that may, or may not be a good thing. It may be benevolent and unavoidable, but it is almost certain to incur waste, mistakes, and unintended consequences. Thus a reasonable philosophy is reduce the process (government) to its absolute minimums.

Waste, mistakes, and unintended consequences are prevalent throughout society...it's not exclusive to government. We are only human, after all.

 

[mheslep]

You might want to try to avoid reading past what was said. I also have no issue with paying taxes. The concept of paying taxes. Particular tax issues can be good or bad, but the claim previously made was that taxation, in general, is stealing. That's what is being countered with the quoted statement. Agreed. But that doesn't have anything to do with Moridin's post.

There are a couple different shades of the OP idea in play in the thread. I noted Moridin's post but as it happens I replied to BoomBoom. BB's variant, or implication, was the 'if you object to taxes, you irresponsibly want no government, and are unaware of the what the government does for you' line. I wanted to draw that out a bit.

 

[mheslep]

I didn't necessarily appreciate trillions of dollars spent on the Iraq war, but that is a different issue...that is how my tax dollars are spent, which is a separate issue from the concept of paying taxes. My tax dollars go towards the government to "manage" the needs of our society, for the benefit of all. IMO it is money well spent. For example, I know that most of my property taxes go towards funding public schools and I have no kids, but I still have no problem with it because it is for the greater good that the children are educated.

In general, I believe the more local the tax the more effective it is in execution. Hence I am always more skeptical of federal taxes, and their use.

So I might be against funding your mheslep program, but then I would just try and vote the guy who funded it out of office...not claim the government was stealing my money to fund it. But who knows, I might actually be in favor of funding your program!

Waste, mistakes, and unintended consequences are prevalent throughout society...it's not exclusive to government. We are only human, after all.

Yes, certainly people in the private sector foul up too, but the era of the Soviet Union showed that centrally planned economies are absolute failures, they are woefully inefficient compared to free(r) societies. I don't say that's what we have now, or that taxes are necessarily stealing, or that we should have no government. I say we should have as little of _it_ as possible.

 

[Moridin]

Then you know you ought to vote for someone else?

The problem of course is that your continual 'payment' of taxes during a war, for instance, implies that you directly supports it. Why accept taxation/theft, when you know that the money will go towards goals that you do not support? Trying to vote the leader out of office is not effective -- you have no individual power or freedom because you are one of hundreds of million of people.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The problem of course is that your continual 'payment' of taxes during a war, for instance, implies that you directly supports it. Why accept taxation/theft, when you know that the money will go towards goals that you do not support? Trying to vote the leader out of office is not effective -- you have no individual power or freedom because you are one of hundreds of million of people.

The money is going towards more than war. Quite a bit more generally. If you object to the direction the society you are taking part in is going you can either attempt to change it or leave.

Do you think that the average person is capable of funding all of the infrastructure which allows them to live the way they do? Water line, power line, telephone line, gas line, roads, ect ect? People of the larger community pool money together to make sure that they all can have these advantages. When a smaller community without much in the way of resources is unable to afford these advantages then the next larger community pools money for the purpose of assisting them. And on up the ladder. It is quite likely that at some point money will be spent on something that does not help certain people or which certain people do not agree with. That is just something that is going to happen in an organized community. Ceasing all payments to the community money pool does not fix this. It only shows that you do not appreciate what all that community does for you with that money. It takes money away not only from the people who are doing what you do not agree with but also from people who need food, heat, shelter, education, ect while you continue to enjoy those advantages now without paying for them.

 

[projektMayhem]

Then you know you ought to vote for someone else?

What good will that do?

 

[chemisttree]

Good point Russ. What in your opinion can we do to revere(se) [sic] this trend?

Rename Texas, "Massachusetts" and Massachusetts, "Texas"?

 

[WhoWee]

From the perspective of an anarcho-capitalist, taxation is always immoral. You don't really "pay" taxes, money is simply stolen from you with the threat of violence. Any form of "taxation" that is voluntary, however, seems just fine from such a perspective.

Obviously that won't work in the presence of a welfare/entitlement state...and WOTC.

Has anyone looked at their cell phone, cable or utilities bills lately...or considered the amount of tax charged on gas, cigarettes, beer, etc.? It's appalling!

My community voted yesterday for a school levy to fund a new building that will require a future levy to operate the building.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

I'll be like Henry David Thoreau and just not pay taxes for awhile and live like a wild man

 

[Al68]

Do you think that the average person is capable of funding all of the infrastructure which allows them to live the way they do? Water line, power line, telephone line, gas line, roads, ect ect?

It funny that none of those examples rely on income taxes, or any involuntary tax. Each of those examples, a service is provided (by either a private company or gov't) at a price, paid voluntarily.

I don't know anyone opposed to that.

 

[Al68]

Particular tax issues can be good or bad, but the claim previously made was that taxation, in general, is stealing.

I haven't heard that claim, especially in this thread.

It seems obvious, though, that taking money by force that is not owed is stealing. The simple fact that one person needs money and another can afford it is not a basis for claiming that money is owed. That would be absurd.

 

[mheslep]

Pursuing the issue of taxation to first causes, and others like it (mandatory military service, police power, etc, etc), I think we will always find ourselves back at Madison's 'great difficulty' in Federalist #51:

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

 

[Al68]

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

That's a good point. The Federal Gov't is "obliged to control itself" by the Constitution for that very reason.

The fact that government does not honor the limits to its power in the constitution, despite the fact that the constitution is the sole source of its legitimate power, simply means that some in government are corrupt and treasonous. We need a legal federal government, not an outlaw government.

 

[mheslep]

I'd drop treasonous from this line, it does a disservice to the argument, and I doubt that is what you really mean. Perhaps: self-interested, ignorant of history, even tyrannical. Treason is a wholly different thing and the constitution took care to define it:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Further noting that there have only been a handful of treason convictions in the entire history of the US.

 

[Al68]

I'd drop treasonous from this line, it does a disservice to the argument, and I doubt that is what you really mean. Perhaps: self-interested, ignorant of history, even tyrannical. Treason is a wholly different thing and the constitution took care to define it:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

I think the word treasonous applies, since being an enemy of the U.S. Constitution is being an enemy of the U.S., but you make a good point.

It wouldn't be the same as the official crime of Treason.

But what other word would reflect the systematic attack on our constitutional form of government from the inside?

 

[mheslep]

I think the word treasonous applies, since being an enemy of the U.S. Constitution is being an enemy of the U.S., but you make a good point.

It wouldn't be the same as the official crime of Treason.

But what other word would reflect the systematic attack on our constitutional form of government from the inside?

Well I think in the effort to make that case accurately and unambiguously the words will come. Remember Madison, of all people, said that empowering the government and at the same time restraining it is hard, not easy. I think therefore arguments about the government overstepping its bounds also are not easy, and though I definitely tend to agree with that line, I find suspect arguments that claim the case is easy.

 

[Al68]

Well I think in the effort to make that case accurately and unambiguously the words will come. Remember Madison, of all people, said that empowering the government and at the same time restraining it is hard, not easy. I think therefore arguments about the government overstepping its bounds also are not easy, and though I definitely tend to agree with that line, I find suspect arguments that claim the case is easy.

I definitely agree with that. Fighting oppression is hard. Fighting against insider enemies of the U.S. is even harder.

 

[mheslep]

I definitely agree with that. Fighting oppression is hard. Fighting against insider enemies of the U.S. is even harder.

I won't go along carelessly along with calling US citizens 'enemies' either, the US has enough real plane-crashing kill-people enemies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot" is about the limit.

 

[Moridin]

The money is going towards more than war. Quite a bit more generally. If you object to the direction the society you are taking part in is going you can either attempt to change it or leave.

Do you think that the average person is capable of funding all of the infrastructure which allows them to live the way they do? Water line, power line, telephone line, gas line, roads, ect ect? People of the larger community pool money together to make sure that they all can have these advantages. When a smaller community without much in the way of resources is unable to afford these advantages then the next larger community pools money for the purpose of assisting them. And on up the ladder. It is quite likely that at some point money will be spent on something that does not help certain people or which certain people do not agree with. That is just something that is going to happen in an organized community. Ceasing all payments to the community money pool does not fix this. It only shows that you do not appreciate what all that community does for you with that money. It takes money away not only from the people who are doing what you do not agree with but also from people who need food, heat, shelter, education, ect while you continue to enjoy those advantages now without paying for them.

I am afraid that organized community does not imply or equal the state. In fact, the state is almost by definition a formed of organized crime (as well as quite disorganized when it comes to the provision of the "public good". It is an empirical fact that the free market can provide better and cheaper goods and services than the state). There are many other ways of accomplishing all of the above without theft. I also agree that we should not cease donations to a community money pool of sorts. I am simply pointing out that coercion, theft, kidnapping and war is not the solution to the problems we face today and that in fact, the state mafia actually hurts us.

You also seem to want to avoid answering the contradiction I exposed in your belief system. The United States will spend about 3 trillion US Dollars on the war in Iraq. By paying taxes, you are explicitly supporting this activity. Similarity, If I pay the local mafia thousands of dollars per year with the knowledge that they will spend a good portion of that money to molest and slaughter people, then I am de facto supporting this action.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I am afraid that organized community does not imply or equal the state. In fact, the state is almost by definition a formed of organized crime (as well as quite disorganized when it comes to the provision of the "public good". It is an empirical fact that the free market can provide better and cheaper goods and services than the state). There are many other ways of accomplishing all of the above without theft. I also agree that we should not cease donations to a community money pool of sorts. I am simply pointing out that coercion, theft, kidnapping and war is not the solution to the problems we face today and that in fact, the state mafia actually hurts us.

You also seem to want to avoid answering the contradiction I exposed in your belief system. The United States will spend about 3 trillion US Dollars on the war in Iraq. By paying taxes, you are explicitly supporting this activity. Similarity, If I pay the local mafia thousands of dollars per year with the knowledge that they will spend a good portion of that money to molest and slaughter people, then I am de facto supporting this action.

The state is absolutely an organized community and any organized community is a form of government. You seem to choose your words based on your opinion of the particular form of organization. You may as well say the grocer is an extortionist because he knows you need food and demands that you pay him for it.

I do not believe that there is a contradiction. I guess my answer got lost in my rambling. The money that I give to the state goes to many things, several of which I find worthwhile, and the fact that some of the money in the pool to which I contribute goes to things I do not agree with does not mean that I am supporting that activity. The system can correct itself unless all of those who disagree with certain decisions cease to support the system where upon it will collapse and no corrections will be made though the activity with which I disagree may stop. If I find I have no hope in the state then I can leave it.

 

[Moridin]

How can the state be organized when its results are so clearly disorganized (economic break down, breakdown of global health etc.)? How can the state be a community when it only contains a very, very minor amount of people compared to the total amount of people in a country?

The grocer is not an extortionist because he does not steal my money or kidnap me when I do not submit to theft. All of my interactions with my grocer is purely voluntary -- after all, I can freely choose another provider or start my own farm. This is not an option with the state.

If you pay your local mafia money that you know both goes to (1) new sandboxes and (2) mass genocide of kittens, you are supporting mass genocide of kittens by paying regardless of whatever other designations the money goes to. If you also assert that mass genocide of kittens is deeply immoral and that you don't want to have any part in it, you have a contradiction on your hands. I do not see how it is any less contradictory by adding more designations. Perhaps you could enlighten me on this.

Furthermore, If a man gives his daughter the option of marrying one of two men, both of which will abuse her -- can it really be said that the daughter has a choice of whether or not she wants to be abused or not? This is why the "then choose other people" argument fails. You only have the "freedom" to choose your own pharaoh, not to choose if you want to have your money stolen from or not.

The "if you don't like it, leave" argument is equally invalid. If I one day decide that I am going to go up and down my neighborhood and demand that people pay me, say, 30% of their income or I will kidnap and incarcerate them and when they object to this I tell them to leave if they don't like it, I am not making a whole lot of sense, am I?

 

[Moridin]

Furthermore, the free market is an organized community, but not a form of government by definition. This serves as a counter-example to your initial claim in your latest post.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How can the state be organized when its results are so clearly disorganized (economic break down, breakdown of global health etc.)? How can the state be a community when it only contains a very, very minor amount of people compared to the total amount of people in a country?

A state, or community, can take on many forms and one of those is with a governing body composed of representatives elected by the members of the community. There is also a form a government called isocracy where all persons hold equal power.
The poor results of an organization does not refute its existence, it only shows the failure of the organization.

The grocer is not an extortionist because he does not steal my money or kidnap me when I do not submit to theft. All of my interactions with my grocer is purely voluntary -- after all, I can freely choose another provider or start my own farm. This is not an option with the state.

There are only certain providers available and they are only available because others have a preference for their goods. If others did not "vote with their wallets" for your preferred provider he would go out of business. Similarly you vote for your representatives in a government like the US. If others like the representative you like that person may get into office and if they do not then he will not.
As far as providing for oneself you could theoretically do this in the US aswell. If you found a bit of land somewhere, built your own house, grew your own food, ect. then you would not have to pay any taxes. Depending on where you are the state may not like this but there are still plenty of conservative enough states with conservative enough judges that you could do it.

If you pay your local mafia money that you know both goes to (1) new sandboxes and (2) mass genocide of kittens, you are supporting mass genocide of kittens by paying regardless of whatever other designations the money goes to. If you also assert that mass genocide of kittens is deeply immoral and that you don't want to have any part in it, you have a contradiction on your hands. I do not see how it is any less contradictory by adding more designations. Perhaps you could enlighten me on this.

Yes, sandboxes and kitty genocide... Its just like that isn't it. You can make anything sound the way you want with an absurd enough metaphor.

Furthermore, If a man gives his daughter the option of marrying one of two men, both of which will abuse her -- can it really be said that the daughter has a choice of whether or not she wants to be abused or not? This is why the "then choose other people" argument fails. You only have the "freedom" to choose your own pharaoh, not to choose if you want to have your money stolen from or not.

One has more than two options. There are several representatives in our government and, as opposed to your marriage metaphor, representatives don't hold office for the rest of your life. And again "stolen" is your perception and a word your use because it suits your desire to make taxes sound wrong.

The "if you don't like it, leave" argument is equally invalid. If I one day decide that I am going to go up and down my neighborhood and demand that people pay me, say, 30% of their income or I will kidnap and incarcerate them and when they object to this I tell them to leave if they don't like it, I am not making a whole lot of sense, am I?

Yet another absurd metaphor. You're right. It's just like that. The IRS agent shows up at your door waving a gun and demanding your money or he'll haul you off to jail. Its not as though any of that money goes to build infrastructure, support the police, support the fire department, build schools, or anything like that. They just take your money and all these reasons for taking it are just lies they use to get people to keep giving them money so they don't have to wave the guns around as much. And telling you to leave if you don't like it has nothing to do with it not being right to receive the benefits of the money other people spend when you will not contribute yourself because of course none of those benefits are real. Its just a guy with a gun who wants your money.

Furthermore, the free market is an organized community, but not a form of government by definition. This serves as a counter-example to your initial claim in your latest post.

The free market is an economic strategy a community may adopt, not a community in and of itself.

 

[Moridin]

The poor results of a group of people demonstrates that they are not organized.

As far as providing for oneself you could theoretically do this in the US aswell. If you found a bit of land somewhere, built your own house, grew your own food, ect. then you would not have to pay any taxes. Depending on where you are the state may not like this but there are still plenty of conservative enough states with conservative enough judges that you could do it.

Of course I would have to pay taxes, such as income taxes if I try to do voluntary trade.

Yes, sandboxes and kitty genocide... Its just like that isn't it. You can make anything sound the way you want with an absurd enough metaphor.

Replace sandboxes with health care and roads and kitty genocide with the Iraq war if you would like for a perfect analogy. You are still avoiding to answer your contradiction which forces me to conclude that you admit that your position is invalid.

One has more than two options. There are several representatives in our government and, as opposed to your marriage metaphor, representatives don't hold office for the rest of your life.

Democrats/Republicans are pretty much the only two options you have; voting for an independent is basically throwing your vote away. But I don't mind allowing several, temporary abusive husbands in this analogy, but it does not change the generalities.

And again "stolen" is your perception and a word your use because it suits your desire to make taxes sound wrong.

So I can stop giving my money to the state and they won't kidnap me or use guns against me if I resist? Erm, no. What planet are you living on?

Yet another absurd metaphor. You're right. It's just like that. The IRS agent shows up at your door waving a gun and demanding your money or he'll haul you off to jail. Its not as though any of that money goes to build infrastructure, support the police, support the fire department, build schools, or anything like that.

Or the war in Iraq. Can a local mafia demand that you pay them money for sandboxes as well as their illegal activity? Does their illegal activity because morally righteous just because they build a few sandboxes for the community? The free market can do all of that based on voluntary interaction without the war.

They just take your money and all these reasons for taking it are just lies they use to get people to keep giving them money so they don't have to wave the guns around as much. And telling you to leave if you don't like it has nothing to do with it not being right to receive the benefits of the money other people spend when you will not contribute yourself because of course none of those benefits are real. Its just a guy with a gun who wants your money.

Even though the state makes some limited efforts in addition to their crimes, the negative consequences far outweigh any benefit, benefits that the free market could just as easily produce without theft, violence or kidnapping.

The free market is an economic strategy a community may adopt, not a community in and of itself.

No, that economic strategy would be free market capitalism. The free market is just a market community who adopts free market capitalism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You are still avoiding to answer your contradiction which forces me to conclude that you admit that your position is invalid.

You see the thing is that I have already answered your question but you seem to have more fun running me in circles and rewording things with language suited to make everything appear as though it is obviously wrong (mafias, abusive husbands, theft, abduction...). You can decide that my position is invalid all you like, I don't mind, I had only hoped for a better discussion.

No, that economic strategy would be free market capitalism. The free market is just a market community who adopts free market capitalism.

And they have no government? Let's see if I can play your game too.
So I suppose they have no judges only the rule of the mob? no police only hired mercenaries? no leaders save for the rich and greedy business owners? and no law but the all mighty dollar?

 

[Moridin]

How can you not see that it is contradictory to (1) reject the war in Iraq as morally abhorrent yet (2) pay money to the state to ensure that it will continue? Thus, you are both supporting and not supporting the war in Iraq. How is this not a contradiction?

I freely admit that of course it is hard to see this within the bubble of illusion that is statism. Similarly, if you expose the contradictions in the position of, say, a young Earth creationist, they won't really see it at once.

So I suppose they have no judges only the rule of the mob? no police only hired mercenaries? no leaders save for the rich and greedy business owners? and no law but the all mighty dollar?

The free market is able to provide all of those services, including dispute resolution organizations, police and so on. The free market dismantles monopolies on its own. This is very basic economics. No, free market capitalism does not mean lawlessness or moral chaos. If you think that the morality come from the state we can simply put forward Socrates Euthyphro dilemma applied to statism instead of theism: is that which the state claim is moral, moral because it is moral, or moral because the state says so? If it is the previous, then morality is independent of the state. If it is the latter, then morality arbitrarily depends on the state and therefore invalid.

 

[WhoWee]

The free market is able to provide all of those services, including dispute resolution organizations, police and so on. The free market dismantles monopolies on its own. This is very basic economics. No, free market capitalism does not mean lawlessness or moral chaos. If you think that the morality come from the state we can simply put forward Socrates Euthyphro dilemma applied to statism instead of theism: is that which the state claim is moral, moral because it is moral, or moral because the state says so? If it is the previous, then morality is independent of the state. If it is the latter, then morality arbitrarily depends on the state and therefore invalid.

However, the free market breaks down when government picks winners and losers...using tax payer funds.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How can you not see that it is contradictory to (1) reject the war in Iraq as morally abhorrent yet (2) pay money to the state to ensure that it will continue? Thus, you are both supporting and not supporting the war in Iraq. How is this not a contradiction?

I freely admit that of course it is hard to see this within the bubble of illusion that is statism. Similarly, if you expose the contradictions in the position of, say, a young Earth creationist, they won't really see it at once.

I have a friend who is an alcoholic. I support my friend. I care about him and the many things that he does for me and others. I give him a place to sleep if he needs it. I buy him food if he needs it. If he asked me for money I would probably give it to him. I also tell him that I do not approve of his alcoholism and I worry about the manner in which he is hurting himself and others. I do what I can to disuade him from his poor choices and if I ever felt that he was beyond hope than I may well cease to be his friend. Does my support of my friend imply support of his alcoholism?

The free market is able to provide all of those services, including dispute resolution organizations, police and so on. The free market dismantles monopolies on its own. This is very basic economics. No, free market capitalism does not mean lawlessness or moral chaos.

It provides police? You mean it provides mercenaries for those that can afford them yes? And those who can not are subject to those who can yes? Because those mercenaries will do their job as dictated by their employer.
Dispute resolution? Again for those that can afford it yes? So there is no justice for the poor? And how is the resolution of the paid mediator enforced? By paid mercenaries? And who has paid those mercenaries? Yet another price tag on justice?
Dismantling of monopolies? You're joking right? How would that happen? If people like a particular business it will do better than others. It will be able to afford better products and more resources and advertising to bring in more customers. Wash rinse repeat until you have one business that makes more than any of its competitors and is capable of buying more resources at higher prices dwindling the resources available to its competitors. And there you have your monopoly. What do you do then? Pay for mercenaries to take care of the situation?

Where do the laws in a free market system come from? Whom ever can afford the mercenaries?

 

[mheslep]

Most libertarian scholars / economists would say that the police power and the judiciary are about the only service that local governments should execute. The problem lies in administration of the rule of law. Law is necessary to have _free_ transactions, that is, free of coercion, and free markets are the basis for everything else in the libertarian view. If private entities are allowed to take over administration of the law, then you create difficulty in guaranteeing that all subsequent transactions are free.

Edit: 'Guaranteeing' is probably the wrong word, as it implies a white/black comparison between the public and private sector and that's not the case. Execution of the police power by publicly elected governments visibly do not 'guarantee' free markets either - very much the opposite. But they do at least allow for some transparency and occasional corrective action by the governed.