I would prefer to pay for services I use then to have the money stolen from me by force while people pretend it is moral because it is called "taxes"
> I would prefer to pay for services I use
I invite you, sometime, to think about which services you really use, and try to figure out how much it would cost to purchase each of them if you were doing so on your own. Don't forget: police protection, fire protection, military protection, paved roads, functioning traffic signals and signs, groomed parks, trash collection (some places), up to sixteen years of education, enforcement of workplace safety standards, financial protection if you become suddenly disabled, a legal system in which to resolve disputes. I don't know what your specific situation is, but just about everyone benefits from those government services in the U.S., and you personally may benefit from many others. I'm guessing that purchasing the first three alone, as an individual on a private market, would probably outrun the total you pay in taxes.
You could lower the individual costs to you of a lot of these by finding a bunch of other people who also need these services, and pooling your money to buy them together. That's just how democratic government begins.
> have the money stolen from me by force
This is a dishonest characterization of the authority of a democratic government to levy taxes. Yes, if you don't pay taxes you owe, someone might come and take your property, and those people might have weapons or threaten you with imprisonment. But that is a measure of last resort, which will surely only be taken if you fail to respond to a long line of more reasonable measures. It does a great injustice to people who actually live under oppressive regimes to compare the collection of taxes under a democratic government to the kind of arbitrary, might-makes-right authority those people are subject to.
Furthermore, by characterizing taxes as 'stolen' money, you are implying that you somehow have an absolute or natural right to have it. Why do you think that? No matter what you do for work, the amount of money you take home is not the product of your exclusive efforts. It also depends on the protections you get just by living in a society that provides some of the services I listed above. You would take home a lot less if, for example, you couldn't rely on the police and legal system to prevent armed bandits from plundering your place of business whenever they please. You'd also probably be a lot less productive if you had to worry about such things on a daily basis. There's a lot standing behind 'your' money that isn't yours, by any reasonable measure.
> while people pretend it is moral because it is called "taxes".
A democratic government's authority to levy taxes does not derive from the name, nor from the force that it can, in extreme cases, use to collect them. Like the government's other kinds of authority, it derives (most people think) from the consent of the governed. Behind that phrase are some important and difficult questions, to be sure. But you are not helping to answer them by characterizing taxes as 'stolen' and 'immoral'.
First of all the comment he was replying to was talking about services like housing, transportation, and healthcare, which already are provided by the market and aren't really things the government has any advantage in. As for all the stuff it does pay for, at best it costs exactly the same amount as you have to pay in taxes. But the government spends money on a lot of other things with your taxes that don't really benefit you. So you would save a decent amount of money. And with no competition, the services they do provide cost a lot more then they probably could.
>You could lower the individual costs to you of a lot of these by finding a bunch of other people who also need these services, and pooling your money to buy them together. That's just how democratic government begins.
This applies to any service. Anything from food production to software development. A lot of people need those things, and they could cut costs if they pooled their money together for them.
>This is a dishonest characterization of the authority of a democratic government to levy taxes. Yes, if you don't pay taxes you owe, someone might come and take your property, and those people might have weapons or threaten you with imprisonment. But that is a measure of last resort, which will surely only be taken if you fail to respond to a long line of more reasonable measures. It does a great injustice to people who actually live under oppressive regimes to compare the collection of taxes under a democratic government to the kind of arbitrary, might-makes-right authority those people are subject to.
He was definitely using words with bad connotations, but technically it is true. Everyone pays their taxes to avoid having their property stolen or going to jail. The fact that force isn't applied unreasonably doesn't mean it isn't there.
>Like the government's other kinds of authority, it derives (most people think) from the consent of the governed.
There are people that don't consent. At best you could say the majority consent. You can justify it by saying it's better than any other system we know of, but not that people consent to it.
So one way to look at the issue is, which costs me more: individual purchase of exactly the services I need, or public purchases of those services plus others that I don't?
This is an empirical question, and the answer depends both on what I need and what my government is currently spending money on. But in general, I think it's very unlikely that the first option could ever be cheaper, for most people and most government-provided services. This is because buying these things privately would mean I have (a) almost no bargaining power, and (b) much higher costs associated with coordinating my purchases with the needs and desires of other people.
> This applies to any service. Anything from food production to software development. A lot of people need those things, and they could cut costs if they pooled their money together for them.
I think this is actually a good starting criterion for deciding what the government should and should not pay for. The government should not pay for what I can get more cheaply or more efficiently by acting as a private individual. That doesn't mean it should pay for everything else, of course. But if sufficiently many people would benefit from something, and they can get it more cheaply by purchasing it together, there's a good case to be made for public investment.
Figuring out the line between what the public should buy versus what collections of private individuals should buy is a really hard problem. It's not always a matter of simply asking "is it cheaper if everyone pays in, or just the people who need it?" One of the benefits of a democracy is that we can have an ongoing public conversation about just where we want to draw that line.
> The fact that force isn't applied unreasonably doesn't mean it isn't there.
I agree. My point was not that the force isn't there, but that it is not the source of a democratic government's authority to levy taxes, and accordingly not the only reason that its citizens pay them. A government which people only obey because of the threat of force is an oppressive regime. I am fortunate not to live under such a government, as I think most people commenting here are too.
> There are people that don't consent. At best you could say the majority consent. You can justify it by saying it's better than any other system we know of, but not that people consent to it.
This is one of those difficult questions I spoke of. Obviously, most people do not explicitly consent to the authority of a democratic government. On the other hand, I'm not so sure it's clear that there are people who don't implicitly consent. Even people who disclaim support for the government usually don't take all possible measures to avoid its authority and benefits.
But actually, I agree that 'consent' may not be the right concept for explaining the source of the authority of democratic government. Still, I think there's something right about the consent idea, and I don't think it just comes down to our not knowing of any better system.
Health care in the U.S. generally costs a lot more than government-run health care in other western countries.
The Current US System is the Worst possible system a culmination of decades of government interference in both employment laws which is irrevocably linked health "insurance" with employment and turned "insurance" into a services prepayment pozi scheme.
Government run systems control costs by having a Fixed Budget, which means each year they outlay X dollars, so if for example there are 100,000 Hip Replacements budgeted for the year, and your Number 100,001 well your SOL. This is called rationing... this is one way government control costs. the other is ignoring or limiting patents for drug companies, so drugs cost less overseas then in the US. There are 1000's of things like this that make the government run systems appear "cheaper".
Cost is not the only factor though, Quality of Care is very important and the US still has more Health Tourists than any other nation... there is a Reason for that.
The US is the example of the most privatized health care, and it's almost twice as expensive as the #2 most expensive country. That #2 country has a semi-privatized system.
Healthcare is one area where a collective (i.e. by the government) approach has a definite advantage. Privatized health care and health insurance is a lot more expensive. The US has the highest medical costs in the western world, yet many people are lacking very basic medical care.
The second most expensive country (at roughly half the cost per capita) is Netherland, where health care is semi-private, semi-government, and health insurance is private but regulated and compulsory in order to provide a uniform standard for everybody. And surrounding countries (where it's cheaper) have better health care at least in some areas.
I don't have numbers, but I expect that the cheapest and highest quality medical care in the western world will be in some country where health care is strongly dominated by the government.
> Everyone pays their taxes to avoid having their property stolen or going to jail. The fact that force isn't applied unreasonably doesn't mean it isn't there.
Just like everybody doesn't steal from their neighbour or kill people who anger them in order to avoid going to jail. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with taxes; it means we live in a civilized society with some basic standards of behaviour.
> There are people that don't consent. At best you could say the majority consent. You can justify it by saying it's better than any other system we know of, but not that people consent to it.
The same goes for any law. I'm sure there are people that disagree that theft or murder should be illegal. Or slavery, for that matter. And those are the extreme cases. For every law, there are some who don't agree with it. Should every law only apply to those who agree with it? Laws would lose their meaning.
Compare: whenever a commenter mentions property, user proudhon99 shows up to write a one-line comment that property is theft. Yes, he legitimately believes it, and his position is actually less absurd than the libertarian's, but comments that could be replicated by parody bots are not that useful.
Those services make up a fairly small portion of government spending. The really vital portions [1] are even smaller.
Most government spending is merely wealth redistribution.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_US_total
[1] Vital: protecting the US from Russian invasion. Non-vital: drone strikes on random Pakistanis. Vital: protection from bandits. Non-vital: war on drug users.
So what should we spend our money on? This is a policy question, and fortunately one which (however indirectly) we each have a say and a stake in. That is also what makes answering it a very messy process.
But answering it presupposes the principle that taxation by democratic government is legitimate. This is the principle which thecodeore was casting rhetorical aspersions on, and that I was defending.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_categor...
19.63% for generational theft, which I pay into but will never see a penny of.
18.74% chiefly for killing brown people on the other side of the planet, generally people who were not a threat to the U.S.
16.13% for programs that are like basic income except that they create awful incentives, are vulnerable to fraud, and have high administrative overhead (mostly people trying to stop the fraud?).
12.79% for health care for the elderly. This program is actually pretty effective, if we ignore the bit where health care providers dramatically overcharge people who do not use it to make up for being underpaid by those people who do use it. It's also questionable whether it will exist in its current form 40 years from now.
It makes sense for me to look at the federal budget because I pay very little in state and local taxes. People who pay more state and local taxes generally end up spending it on paying CHP staff $400,000/year or ensuring that teacher pensions return 8% year over year when no investment on the market does that.
Given this state of affairs, it's not unreasonable to think that you could make some substantial savings when purchasing the services you would use through means other than an annual mugging.
We can agree that some of the actual budget allocations of our governments are not ideal. That's not the point. (See what I said in response to yummyfajitas elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6196119) The point is that taxation is not theft, and characterizing it as such unhelpfully distracts from the real and difficult problems of self-government.
I live in the United States. If I do not pay my taxes, I will be kidnapped. If I resist kidnapping, I will be murdered. This is why I pay my taxes. I do not pay my taxes because I want to kill brown people on the other side of the planet, or because I believe that a government has a right to unilaterally create obligations on my behalf (and for ten years after I renounce my citizenship!), or because I believe marijuana users should be locked up and sodomized.
Given that we will not rid ourselves of taxation in the near future, some ways of spending that money are better than others, and it's worthwhile to talk about that. There may even be a few policies that are so beneficial that they justify theft.
Edit: I suppose the actual useful difference in perspectives here is about how the policy debate should look. I believe that each policy decision that increases or maintains spending should have to overcome the weight of the injustice inherent in funding it. Many other people believe that there is no such injustice, so policies that provide only a mild benefit when compared to privately allocating the same funds should also be implemented.
You are correct in I do not exist in an island, however I do VOLUNTARILY exchange my labor for goods and services, this is society, not the immoral democratic structure you call "government". Government is a vile, evil entity that seeks to destroy society not build upon it.
>police protection,
Police are not today, and never have been a protectionarly unit, you can not cite any case law, or evidence to support that belief, if they were there would not be the need for self defense, private security, and entire industry producing goods and services for protecting one's self
Police are a Harassment and control mechanism for the state to force arbitrary laws and regulations passed by special interests, the majority or other such groups. They are nothing more than a gang of thugs.
>fire protection,
Historically Fire Protection was provided quite well and for a much lower cost privately, infact come counties are going back to that model.
Today I live in a Region with a 100% VOLUNTEER fire protection services that is supported by VOLUNTARY DONATIONS by the community, instead of violent forced collections. Our fire services is the best in the region with faster response times then the surrounding areas where they are paid to sit on their asses all day with money stolen from the community.
>military protection,
Most of the Military Budget today is used for Unjust and immoral wars, and immoral surveillance. I, just as our founders, do not believe in a Standing Army.
>paved roads,
A good % of roads are PRIVATE roads, further public roads can be funded exclusively with user fees which I have no problems with, as if your using the road you should pay for them, however they should not be funded with Income Taxation, Property Taxation, etc.
>functioning traffic signals and signs
See Above
>groomed parks,
Parks are not a proper role of government, I have never used a City Park, have no desire to use a City Park, and my money should not be stolen from me to pay for a city park
>trash collection (some places),
I have a private collection service that I pay monthly
>up to sixteen years of education,
Calling government schooling an "education" is laughable at best
>enforcement of workplace safety standards,
A System of Strict liability would be better for that
>financial protection if you become suddenly disabled,
I have private Long and Short term disability insurance, even if I did not that should be done via community charities not through the forced taking of other peoples money
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs
> a legal system in which to resolve disputes.
The legal system should be paid for by the people that make use of it.
That said, there are a number of externalities that you're not thinking of. The simplest is: without a government, what's to stop someone from walking into your house and killing you? Every incentive says they should: free money, no consequences.
Another is: if we privatize everything, then only the wealthy get the benefits of having a society. Privatized workplace safety enforcement, for example, would ensure that only those rich enough to afford a lawsuit could get justice if injured in an unsafe environment. That's just stupid.
I am more than likely your Senior, it is infact youth that believes that government is required for a functional society, that government some how makes society better with age comes the wisdom to understand the true evil of government
>That said, there are a number of externalities that you're not thinking of. The simplest is: without a government, what's to stop someone from walking into your house and killing you? Every incentive says they should: free money, no consequences.
Watch this...
>You want to make everything you do voluntary yet think that it will somehow lead to a world where everything is rainbows and unicorns,
Not at all, infact it is statists that believe in Utopia, believe that if they use "just enough violence" they can force everyone to behave as they want.
2. Can you provide the slightest evidence that what you advocate turns out any way other than somalia? By this I mean actual historical evidence... not hour wishful thinking or ranting about force and violence. Evidence is not the same as you letting out your opression fetish. No one cares how you get off, we just want evidence of your idiotic claims.
Incidentally, Vanuatu is a place with zero income taxes (unless you're a landlord), happy people, and good weather. Perhaps you should consider moving there if you want a strict user-pays-for-service system?
I've had the misfortune of having to deal with the police of two different police departments this year. In the first instance my car was stolen, in the second someone ran into my car that was parked on the side of the road. In both instances the Police were totally incompetent and arguably caused me more financial damage than the criminal and the out of control driver.
Here is how; Once the Police "recovered" my stolen car I had to pay their towing company of choice about $400 to get my car back. In the second case they have taken over a month to issue the police report about the accident; my insurance company won't pay to have the car fixed until they have the report so I've had to front the costs in the mean time and hope that they get their act together at some point.
I think I would have been better off in both situations if there had been no police and my taxes were a bit lower.
Social Darwinism went out of fashion about 60 years ago. In part because its philosophical underpinnings had little to do with Darwin or evolution.
For example, an alternate view is that taxes are part of kin selection, in that those people who pay more taxes end up with a social system which is better at raising successful children who continue that culture and practice.
Advantageous? Yes. Virtuous? Nature stares at you, blinking.
For example, "murder" is nearly always defined within the context of human-human interactions, but "apex predator" is usually thought of on the species level, as in "humans are apex predators" not "David Hasselhoff is an apex predator." It's disingenuous for you to change contexts like that.
Darwin discussed the idea of kin selection, and how it applies to sterile honey bees. Why should a sterile bee support the group when it passes on (in modern terms) none of its own genes to its children?
Under your thesis, why don't those bees take the 'virtuous' route and attack the other bees, eat the honey, and otherwise destroy the colony? What's in it for them to not do that?
I am not so reductionist as to say that human actions can be mapped directly to kin selection, but I think it's an important factor. We also have cultural biases which have an influential effect. It's generally easier to have a civilization where you aren't worried all the time that people might murder you or your family, so energy that might otherwise go into protection and defense can be used for other things.
If you disregard the reasons for why a killing might not good for an organism, then you disregard a vital understanding of Darwinism.
We tend to "project respect" onto animals that could kill us, certainly, and some apex predators fall into that category. But some apex predators do not, and other non-predators do, and my observation is that size and danger to us are more important to our sense of respect than for the species being an apex predator.
Electric eels, largemouth bass, and loggerhead sea turtles[1] are apex predators, within their respective environments. Do we respect as much as we do polar bears? No, we respect them less. Do we respect them as much as we do a rhinoceros? Again, no, despite rhinos not being a predator.
We respect horses, elephants, and rhinos, which are herbivorous and definitely not a predator, apex or otherwise. How is our respect for these large and potentially dangerous animals any fundamentally different than for an apex predator? I certainly place a rhino higher than electric eels on my list of animals to stay far away from. I get no sense that there are different categories of respect based specifically on being an apex predator.
Gorillas are mostly herbivorous but sometimes eat meat, and adult gorillas have no natural predators - are they apex predators, and do we respect them for their 'expensive kills'? No.
We certainly respect the Andean Condor, that being a national symbol of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Adults have no natural predators, but it's primarily a scavenger and not a predator. Your thesis, however, is that our respect for the condor is fundamentally different (and lesser?) than that of the bald eagle. I don't agree. Can you elaborate?
Nor do I accept your use of the term "advantageous behavior." You focus on its use for killing, but advantageous behavior also applies to vultures scavenging from a carcass, for squirrels eating seeds, for dung beetles which consume feces, and for the phototropic effect in plants.
That is, you correctly said that 'in the state of nature killing is morally neutral'. My complaint is that the better statement is 'in the state of nature everything is morally neutral.' Focusing on the narrow topic of killing reveals more your own fascination for that one issue than anything else.
[1] Loggerhead turtles are an apex predator in Florida Bay http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/ocd/sferpm/fy02/Schroeder02_abstrac...
Yes you can go far enough and find "indirect" benefits to anyone for anything, but you have to stretch it quite a bit.
Besides my point is even if a group of people went into the wilderness and declared independence, the government would still go after them and have power over them, even though they aren't consuming any government services at all.