Hacker News Reader

Comment by tenderLoins | Hacker News Reader

Well, the taxes/theft thing isn't quite appropriate.

Seizure, impounding, eviction, even fines, ...these might ring truer, since they're generally harsher, require less sophistication and such effects are more immediate. These things are often unavoidable, and inflicted without option or recourse.

Meanwhile, taxes, tolls, tariffs... eh, not so much. They're slow, often legislated amidst varying degrees of democracy (in our modern times) and in some cases can be met with degrees of flexibility, where a real slippery individual might be capable of avoiding them.

View on HN

> Well, the taxes/theft thing isn't quite appropriate.

True. Taxes are armed robbery with a threat of kidnapping and confinement. They have nothing to do with theft.

>Taxes are armed robbery

This is such a crock.

Taxes are the agreed upon payment for services rendered, the EULA for which you agreed to by being in the country.

> Taxes are the agreed upon payment for services rendered, the EULA for which you agreed to by being in the country.

If taxes were called protection money you still wouldn't connect the dots.

That is not an agreement, at best it is "being held at ransom".

Are you willing to give up your language, culture, job, home, friends and family and probably whole lot of other things to nullify that EULA?

Every law that is a promise to use force, incarceration and violence to uphold it.

And the tax system today is more and more like two wolves and a sheep having a vote on what to eat for supper.

Except that your culture, job, and home are there largely because of the services your tax dollars support.

So yes if you're not willing to give up those things you just accepted that newfangled thingy we call "The Social Contract."

One could also argue that I have a job, culture and home despite the government - not thanks to them.

There are very large and practical advantages of organizing judicial system, infrastructure and other basic, hard to replace societal services through a tax system.

But history shows us that the more a government interferes the less efficient the result will be.

My analysis of the current situation would be that since all power corrupts the governments of today have become hard-handed, arbitrary in their exercise of powers and blind to the consequences. The amount self restraint that an ordinary citizen could expect from governments seems to be long gone, they pass another law, they raise the taxes and use the "social contract" as a pretext.

I am a very firm believer in non-violence and non-force and would like to minimize the use of violence and force as much as possible, advocates of statism and authoritarians in general don't seem to agree with that view.

Please see the article at the top of this thread for a good example of what I'm talking about.

Then go ahead and make the argument.

Also, unless you are an anarchist who rejects all forms of capitalism, then I would argue you do support the use of violence and force, you just support a different kind of authoritarianism.

Oooh, a social contract reference, my favorite! Please, show me this social contract I've signed. Where can I read the specific terms of this contract, and how do I challenge/nullify the clauses I disagree with?

You sign it every day by choosing to live here...

You challenge/nullify the parts you disagree with using this nifty tool we call, "The Democratic Process".

The specific terms of the contract are available here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionUScode.action;jses...

Fair enough, but according to Wikipedia's rough overview of contract law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract (because we all know Wikipedia is the end-all be-all of authority on matters like this)

it appears the Gov't is in violation of their part of the contract, to wit the clause of AT LEAST the 4th Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures; see the TSA, see most police conduct, see the crap with the NSA, etc etc ad nauseam). Therefor, I should be able to nullify and void this 'social contract' and (among other things, trying to keep it simple since we're arguing 'on the internet') not pay my taxes. We all know how well that will work out - fines, court summons, all culminating with large men with heavy clubs and guns knocking on my door to 'coerce' me to fulfill "my half" of the bargain.

If the deck is stacked so far against you there's no reasonable way to remedy your grievances, it ain't a 'contract' it's a 'coercion' or 'an offer you can't refuse'. The government is a bully with a very large, very powerful club, and we have no reasonable recourse against it. We try to play by the rules, they'll change the rulebook or completely change the game. Ergo, the grand-grand-grand-parent commenter who said "Taxes are an armed robbery" is essentially correct.

I'm not even going to get into the 'contracts made under duress aren't enforceable contracts' side of things.

And, apropos of nothing, while I personally don't mind paying most taxes, I'd like to see a way for individuals to pay 'their share' and indicate what programs their money would get allocated to "Humble Indie Bundle" style. A 'reasonable default' for the majority who don't care, but sliders and drop-downs with various degrees of detail for those who do. I'd like to be able to shunt all of my tax money into silos for 'road repair', 'public education', "fireman's fund", etc, and keep it away from things like "Department of Defense" "local police forces", and "NSA slush fund". tl; dr - A highly granular way to "vote with my dollar". I doubt that will get implemented in my lifetime (if ever), but a man can dream...

If my landlord breaks the terms of my lease I am more than free to move, but I don't get to stay there for free just because he broke the contract.

You can nullify the contract by leaving any time you like. Or you can attempt to hold the government to the contract using a little known facet of our democratic process called "The Legislative Branch."

Once again ... It's not a fair argument to say that you can leave any time you want.

Your home, family, friends, culture, job and probably a big part of your identity will be left behind. Even in states with well known scumbag governments people tend to stay until they have a very real threat to their life and person.

And to think that democracy is a kill-everything-silver-bullet is very naive, we have had laws written under democratic rule that allowed one person to own other persons, less then 10 years ago sexual intercourse between men were still illegal some states in USA.

And yet I agree that a central government is preferable to no central government, I would also agree that democracy is very much preferred over the alternatives.

All I ask is that the social contract is not to be used as a pretext for things that are not absolutely necessary since we are born into that contract and can not nullify it in any realistic way at a later stage in life. Please respect my personal freedom, privacy and individual rights - keep the use of force and violence against others to an absolute minimum.

Is that to much to ask?

PS Search youtube for video called "George Ought to Help", it may contain some things worth thinking about

Democracy is not the only option, according to the terms of the contract violent revolution is also on the table, but a cursory study of U.S. history will tell you how bad of an idea that is.

Also as I already pointed out, your home, family, friends, culture, and job are there largely because of the services the government provides. So while it may suck, if you disagree with paying taxes you can not pay them and leave, or you can stay pay your taxes and continue to enjoy the services of the government.

Here's a thought experiment. Imagine if the government hadn't invested it's tax revenue back into national defense and infrastructure for the past three centuries. Do you still think your home, family, friends, culture, or job would exist? Why should you get to enjoy the payout of investing three centuries worth of tax revenue if you are not going to contribute?

People give up their homes, family, friends, and culture every single day in the U.S. just to survive. Now I do think it's definitely unfair to those who simply can't afford to move. If that's the case for you or the parent I was responding to, I will personally buy you a plane ticket to Somalia (or any other place with limited government) and give you two months rent.

First, about taxes ... I live in Sweden and we pay the worlds second highest percentage of GDP as tax and the service I get in return is really not anywhere near best-of-class.

If we were talking about national defence and infrastructure, that would be something that even an "anarchist" as myself would be willing accept and file under "things that a government can administer", but the amount of government sponsored waste, abuse and misuse of collected tax is reaching biblical proportions right in front of my eyes.

We don't have a constitutional court in Sweden and the political landscape is very much a hegemony and in practice a two party system like the US - it doesn't lean towards changing the system in any meaningful way, When I'm told that I should be prepared to accept my current situation due to a "social contract" which I have been born into - and if I don't like it I can always pack my bags and move to Somalia - it doesn't seem at all reasonable to me - even if you pay my ticket.

Second, role and praise of governments ... The major advancements in living standards and job creation have largely been due to technological improvements, free market capitalism, enterprises and entrepreneurs. The largest redistributions of wealth have been due to voluntary membership in trade unions and individuals exercising their right to choose employer. Governments and nation states have historically opposed any change to things like guild systems and even ordered military forces to break up strike actions. I don't think that crediting governments for job creation and living standards is entierly correct.

We don't live in a perfect world, so I don't expect volontary co-operation to work for all issues that a society faces, I am prepared to accept a central government in a nation state. In that way I am just a different kind of authoritarian than you. There may even be a high practical value for a central government to administer things like infrastructure, defence and judical system.

But once we get past that point we are walking a slippery sloap and we must be very careful with every step we take - otherwise we might end up in a situation where it is me or your who gets a thoroughly examaniation of our back part like the gentleman mentioned in the article above.

And I really don't see how that is covered in any form of social contract.

I'll admit I don't know much about the government of Sweden but aren't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Legislation_(Sweden) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Sweden an analogue of the U.S. Supreme Court?

Sweden is second in the world behind Norway for income equality (one of the most import factors in encouraging entrepreneurship), has one of the highest rates of entrepreneurship of OECD countries (much higher than the U.S.), is number one in the world in terms of gender equality, has the 4th highest life expectancy in the world (The U.S. is 33rd), has the fifth lowest infant mortality rate in the world (less than half that of the U.S.), and is within 10% of the U.S. in terms of GDP per capita.

According to the most recent data I can find (2012) Sweden is fifth in the world in terms of tax percentage of GDP. Considering Sweden is top 5 in almost every indicator I can think of, that seems pretty reasonable to me, and I would not hesitate to call that best of class service.

How can you simultaneously claim that "The largest redistribution of wealth have been due to voluntary membership in trade unions and individuals exercising their right to choose employer."

While also making the claim that you can't simply up and move because "Your home, family, friends, culture, job and probably a big part of your identity will be left behind".

If there is only one or very few employers in your area what real right do you have to choose your employer? Your indictment of the Social contract is equally an indictment of the Free Market.

Also you're going to need some evidence to back up claims like "The major advancements in living standards and job creation have largely been due to technological improvements, free market capitalism, enterprises and entrepreneurs." If you'll take at look at the industrial revolution you'll notice almost all infant industries were subsidized, several key technological developments that helped lead to the industrial revolution were spurred by government intervention (e.g.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_chronometer), and patents were really enforced for the first time to encourage entrepreneurship and strangle competition from competing countries.

As for the government using force to break up strikes. I can only speak to U.S. history, but I can't think of an instance where the government stepped in (with violence) before the strike turned violent. I can think of several far more egregious applications of violence by private industries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matewan_Massacre

And in fact, it was the government which codified the right of unions to strike, preventing private enterprise's unjustified use of violence (or at least attempting to). Unions pretty much wouldn't exist today if it weren't for government protection.

Also, I'm sorry but anarchists reject the use of force in all forms, they would not support any hierarchical forms of power (in a lot of cases that includes any capitalist system, and no anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists). Let's call it what it is, Libertarianism.

> Why should you get to enjoy the payout of investing three centuries worth of tax revenue if you are not going to contribute?

You're portraying industry and taxation as a chicken and egg scenario, and by proving that taxation is why your job is here, taxation must therefore be the enabler of civilization (and as a result, just and moral -- to the extent you support caging people who do not agree). Your basic premise is theoretically and historically inaccurate.

As for your disdain for limited government, that's what set the US apart. It's why we grew to have the largest industry in the world. By your reasoning, Cuba and North Korea should have regulated themselves into endless prosperity by now. Let me buy you a ticket.

Cuba has a longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and more gender equality than the US. It also has a much better educational system.

So yes, I would actually love to live in Cuba, so I will take you up on your offer to buy me a ticket.

You can email me at quinnchrzan@gmail.com to make arrangements.

Thanks!

Also, if you want to provide any evidence for any of your claims, that'd be great!

You need evidence that economic prosperity should not come at the expense of human rights? Or that America was founded on the principles of restricted government and individual liberty seeking freedom from religious persecutions? Or that shaping moments of this nation was a tax revolt that led to the American Revolution? I don't have time to give history lessons, but I'm not making it up. Check it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

Ahahahahah the entire history of the United States is based on expanding economic prosperity at the expense of human rights. For fucks sake slavery was enshrined in our constitution because it was so profitable. Then there was the whole genocide of native populations at the expense of economic growth.

And yes obviously they were revolting over having to pay taxes not you know the whole taxation without representation thing (hmmm... taxation in exchange for representation, that sounds almost like some sort of social contract). Maybe try reading some history through a different lens than "waaaaah taxes!" Why don't you give this a try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People's_History_of_the_Unite...

Also I was dead serious about accepting your offer to buy me a ticket to Cuba, you can email me at quinnchrzan@gmail.com

Thanks!

You made the case that the US should be a poster child for unrestricted government, citing Somalia as a contrast. I'm simply saying that the beginnings of the US more closely resembled the Wild West than a well-regulated market place. You're only supporting my point in arguing that even the most "civilized" of governments are founded in death and despair, but you probably won't realize that as you're not arguing out of principle.

I will seriously buy your ticket if you promise to stay in Cuba. Email me in a year with proof and I'll send some bitcoins your way. Maybe they'll have computers in Cuba by then.

Yes you are correct when the U.S. was founded it had almost no regulations, no taxes (aside from tariffs), and federalism hadn't quite been worked out yet so the U.S. government was as small as it could have been. I would argue that that's about as close to a truly "Free Market" as America ever got.

...and the result was enslavement, genocide, and subjugation. Yay! I don't know what you mean by saying I'm not arguing out of principle. I'm citing specific events and facts while you sit there and say "but history!" while not responding to any of the evidence I'm providing or providing any of your own.

You offered to buy me a ticket, not promise to reimburse me if I stayed for a year. If you're already trying to back out of your verbal (written?) contract you must be a pretty shitty libertarian. How about this, I'll draw up a contract in which I agree to stay for a year on the condition that you pay for my ticket with the requirement that if I fail to prove residency after one year I will reimburse you for the ticket. A ticket from where I live to Key West (an hour boat ride away) is less than 200$. What do you say? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

And hey maybe when (if) I come back in a year the U.S. might have a functional education system and get that healthcare thingy figured out. I mean it's kind embarrassing we're doing worse than a country that doesn't have computers. Except they do have computers despite the efforts of the U.S. embargo.

> I don't know what you mean by saying I'm not arguing out of principle

Let me put it another way. The efficacy and morality of taxation cannot be deduced via extrapolating historical economic and sociological data points. If a country has high taxes and is economically well off, that doesn't refute that taxation constitutes theft. It also doesn't prove that they couldn't have been better off with lesser or no taxes. Just because a region has low taxes or low regulation doesn't mean it's the epitome of what a decentralized society has to look like either. I can tell you think you have my ideology in a little libertarian box, but you're only fooling yourself.

As for your ticket, I'm not backing out -- but the condition is you have to stay. I'll buy your ticket and send it to you, but you have to put down a safety deposit on a mutually agreed upon arbitrator for the amount of $400. Every year you can prove residency you get $100 back. If you can't prove residency, I keep the remaining funds.

Right, and simply stating that taxes constitute theft isn't an argument either. What exactly is your argument? Because so far all I've gleaned is "waaaaah taxes."

And supposing I accept the fact that taxes are theft. If I can show with my stupid "evidence" and "historical record" that lack of government regulation has tended to cause oh say, slavery, genocide, and subjugation. Am I simply supposed to accept the risk of those because you can make the unfalsifiable claim that no taxes could theoretically lead to a different outcome? Why is theft the ultimate immorality in your ideology. Is the capitalist exploitation of the worker not theft?

So now you want me to put up twice the cost of the ticket and stay for at least four years? Somehow I don't think you made your initial offer in good faith. I'll accept if you lower the bond to the price of the ticket and stick to the initial one year (mostly because I sincerely doubt I could manage to stay in Cuba for 4 years without getting booted out). You can pick the escrow agent (obviously I'd prefer an established service).

Oh in just in case you think you've got my ideology in a box. I'm all for a decentralized government. I'd say I identify most closely with anarcho-syndicalism. But I do most definitely reject any sort of libertarian or capitalist ideology.

> Right, and simply stating that taxes constitute theft isn't an argument either.

1. I made observation X.

2. You argue observation X is wrong because Y and Z.

3. I claim arguments Y and Z don't negate observation X

4. You claim I don't offer any arguments besides "waaah taxes"

I just want you to realize how ridiculous your method of communication is. Your communication style reveals that you're more interested in being "right" than understanding why an argument is made. That's fine, but I'm not really interested in scoring fake debate points here. This isn't a debate -- and if it was, you would be in trouble. Instead of asking why I hold an observation to be true (thus, allowing me to make an argument for it), you immediately go on the offense, forcing me to rebuttal your arguments. I stopped responding because it became clear you're here to reaffirm your own ideology rather than discuss ideas.

X = If you do it, it's theft. If they do it, it's a tax.

Y = I will personally buy you a plane ticket to Somalia (or any other place with limited government)

Z = Imagine if the government hadn't invested it's tax revenue back into national defense and infrastructure for the past three centuries.

I'm still waiting for that ticket, sure seems like you're backing out.

> the EULA for which you agreed

I never agreed to anything. Born into a social contract, you say? Well, only slaves are born into contracts, I will retort.

Using wordplay doesn't make your point more interesting.

Slaves can't enter contracts, by birth or otherwise.

Minors can't enter contracts, either, so your parents entered you on your behalf when you were born. You maintain it by staying here.

You had an 18 year head start to decide before most of the social contract even takes affect, while using services largely tax-free.

You're welcome to leave whenever you like.

> Minors can't enter contracts, either, so your parents entered you on your behalf when you were born. You maintain it by staying here.

Or it is null and void when I turn 18.

> You're welcome to leave whenever you like.

And so are you. So there. It is pointless to counter criticism of society with "move to Somalia if you don't like it" and similar absurd platitudes. It doesn't address the question at hand, and it also doesn't address the fact that people who disagree with the (faux) social contract does not have any less of a right to live in the same country as you do.

Imagine that you go to a party, and to your horror you discover that a mass rape is in progress. You try to intervene and say that this is just not right, but are quickly told that if you don't like it you can go down the street to that other party where there are no raping going on.

No, taxes are payment on debt you owe. Ben Franklin explained it quite well:

-----------------------

The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

-----------------------

Source: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12....

Does owning slaves and printing currency make one an authority on 'natural rights'?

Ad hominem.

Questioning an appeal to authority is ad hominem? That explains plenty.

OK, replace "taxes" with "asset forfeiture". Read this and weep: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com