next »

[macsnafu]

I love it when things are trivially easy to reveal as evil. That always turns into a matter of opinion, since there is no universal basis to ethics.
You do have a right to "feel" that it is evil, but taking a feeling as something more than a feeling, to be something transcendental - is the kind of thing which most commonly leads to "trivial evil" - in the opinion of other people, of course.
Let's look at it like this: If we posit that there are people who regard their nation as an organization to which they willingly belong, how is the membership fee then evil or akin to slavery?

The lack of choice, there is that. But it is not unique to taxes. What if there was an alternative to paying the membership fee, say, an special insurance policy, as well as "rent" for living under the military umbrella... and having none of the other benefits of citizenship. Would that make the membership fee less evil? If so, how evil could it really have been to begin with, except "in principle" but principle brings us back to "opinions" and "feelings".

Ok, I admit, I am stirring up trouble here. All in a spirit of fun, right?

The "lack of choice isn't something, it's everything.  Force or the threat of force is being used to compel payment, whatever the form it takes.   I would say that the coercion of a government in paying taxes is little different from a thief who robs you at gunpoint.  I wouldn't call it ironic,  but rather hypocritical that the government is doing exactly what they say they will protect us from.  This essentially makes the government a protection racket.    You may not consider this "evil", but certainly one can recognize the contradiction inherent in the situation.

Furthermore, actions have consequences, and some means are more appropriate for achieving certain ends than others.  Taxation redistributes wealth from some people to others, changing the marketplace and affecting the efficiency of production, as well as reducing the power of the consumer.  Taxation is thus not an appropriate means to full productivity and consumer satisfaction. 

Again, you may not consider this objectively evil, but it must certainly be considered undesirable to many people.

[Andreas]

Ok, I admit, I am stirring up trouble here. All in a spirit of fun, right?

The "lack of choice isn't something, it's everything.  Force or the threat of force is being used to compel payment, whatever the form it takes.   I would say that the coercion of a government in paying taxes is little different from a thief who robs you at gunpoint.  I wouldn't call it ironic,  but rather hypocritical that the government is doing exactly what they say they will protect us from.  This essentially makes the government a protection racket.    You may not consider this "evil", but certainly one can recognize the contradiction inherent in the situation.

Furthermore, actions have consequences, and some means are more appropriate for achieving certain ends than others.  Taxation redistributes wealth from some people to others, changing the marketplace and affecting the efficiency of production, as well as reducing the power of the consumer.  Taxation is thus not an appropriate means to full productivity and consumer satisfaction. 

Again, you may not consider this objectively evil, but it must certainly be considered undesirable to many people.

Some would argue that the redistribution of wealth affects the market in a positive way: The 1%'s (to use a cliché) purchasing of goods as compared to their total wealth is smaller than the similar ratio of the low-income groups, so a million dollars creates less business in the hands of a millionaire than in the hands of ten thousand low-income people. How soon will the millionaire spend one of his millions on goods or services? Could take a while. How soon will 10000 single moms spend 100$ each on goods and services? Inside a week is a fair bet.
There's a lot of circularity in the way these things are discussed.
"Undesirable" might be true of "many", but not of "most". The thing is, there really are alternatives to paying taxes, and they don't all involve jail. They do involve not taking part in certain parts of society - by living abroad, etc.
The choice is there, and most people prefer taxes.

Not that I wouldn't like to see a no-taxes area, provided that it doesn't just become a robber barons' nest, drawing wealth from other places and giving nothing back - a parasite nation.

[Damocles]

Taxes only make sense if you accept that the government (which collects them, and enforces payment by law, and by extension by force of arms) provides a service worth paying for.  I haven't seen much of that.  They defend me, they say, against foreign and domestic enemies, but they don't do a very good job of it, tending mainly to seek revenge after the fact;

You're being a little unfair to the US military (I'm assuming here that you're a US resident).  As far as I can tell, the US hasn't been invaded since 1812.  Not to mention the relative peace that US citizens have enjoyed since WWII and the advent of nuclear weapons.  The military performs its function best when it acts like a deterrent.  All of which would be impossible without taxes.

[ShireSilver]

Some would argue that the redistribution of wealth affects the market in a positive way: The 1%'s (to use a cliché) purchasing of goods as compared to their total wealth is smaller than the similar ratio of the low-income groups, so a million dollars creates less business in the hands of a millionaire than in the hands of ten thousand low-income people. How soon will the millionaire spend one of his millions on goods or services? Could take a while. How soon will 10000 single moms spend 100$ each on goods and services? Inside a week is a fair bet.

"What is seen and what is unseen" immediately springs to mind.

The people using this argument for redistributing wealth are mistaken. Just as important as spending in a market is investing. Investing is what makes improvements possible, and without some people keeping an excess of their profits you get no investing.

[macsnafu]

Some would argue that the redistribution of wealth affects the market in a positive way: The 1%'s (to use a cliché) purchasing of goods as compared to their total wealth is smaller than the similar ratio of the low-income groups, so a million dollars creates less business in the hands of a millionaire than in the hands of ten thousand low-income people. How soon will the millionaire spend one of his millions on goods or services? Could take a while. How soon will 10000 single moms spend 100$ each on goods and services? Inside a week is a fair bet.
There's a lot of circularity in the way these things are discussed.

The circularity generally comes about because people don't fully realize what they're talking about.   
Yes, some people consider redistribution a good thing because it supposedly helps the poor at little expense to the rich.  Unfortunately for them, they're just wrong. Assuming the wealthy obtained their wealth in a just manner, then they did it by providing the goods and services that the consumers wanted.   Sam Walton, for example, became rich by helping out middle to low-income people with low-cost goods.  Sure, the wealthy are free to shop at Wal-Mart, too, but generally would prefer to shop at a higher-class, higher-status store.   John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil in the 19th century got wealthy by reducing the costs of oil so that not only could people more afford it, but low-income people who previously couldn't afford it were now able to purchase it. 

In both cases, what they did for low-income people was of considerably more value than any government redistribution could have been.  Redistribution is thus not the best way to help the poor.

"Undesirable" might be true of "many", but not of "most". The thing is, there really are alternatives to paying taxes, and they don't all involve jail. They do involve not taking part in certain parts of society - by living abroad, etc.
The choice is there, and most people prefer taxes.

A choice, certainly, but a rather high opportunity cost choice.  Government sometimes offers people little or no choice, but in some cases, government doesn't eliminate choice, but merely reduces the choices, or makes those choices more expensive.  Take education, for example.  Private schools are not prohibited, but if you want to put your children in a private school, you still have to pay the taxes that go towards public schools, in addition to the fees charged by the private school.  This makes private schooling less affordable for middle and low income families, although they still have the "choice" to put their kids in private school.

In these cases, it's more a matter of degree than a simple free or prohibited.  In any case, government still acts to limit or reduce options and freedom for its citizens. [/quote]

[Andreas]

Some would argue that the redistribution of wealth affects the market in a positive way: The 1%'s (to use a cliché) purchasing of goods as compared to their total wealth is smaller than the similar ratio of the low-income groups, so a million dollars creates less business in the hands of a millionaire than in the hands of ten thousand low-income people. How soon will the millionaire spend one of his millions on goods or services? Could take a while. How soon will 10000 single moms spend 100$ each on goods and services? Inside a week is a fair bet.

"What is seen and what is unseen" immediately springs to mind.

The people using this argument for redistributing wealth are mistaken. Just as important as spending in a market is investing. Investing is what makes improvements possible, and without some people keeping an excess of their profits you get no investing.

An excess of profits?
An excess of profits minus 25% is still an excess of profits :p

Besides, investments are profitable. People invest to avoid having their wealth eaten up by inflation, and they'll keep doing so, even if their profit is reduced by taxes... they still come out ahead, and the alternative to investment is to bleed money.

You know, I'd like to see a anarchocapitalist land purchase. I believe in pluralism, you see.
What I don't like is all the propaganda that always flies about when people are passionate... because, in this case that propaganda is saying that I'm not allowed to prefer taxes. And that pisses me off.
It's antipluralist, it's idiotic and it's pointless.

I think the anarchocapitalist cause would be better served by cooperating with other non-mainstream groups to make the "hegemony of the mediocre" (i.e. the two-party system) make some room... for everyone.

[Bob G]

. . . People invest to avoid having their wealth eaten up by inflation . . .

Another hidden government 'tax' scheme.

You know, I'd like to see a anarchocapitalist land purchase. I believe in pluralism, you see.
What I don't like is all the propaganda that always flies about when people are passionate... because, in this case that propaganda is saying that I'm not allowed to prefer taxes. And that pisses me off.

In A/C, you're 'allowed' to prefer taxes as often and as passionately as you desire, and to try to persuade others of the righteousness of your idea. Even pay them, if you choose to do so. But don't come after me with a club, or hire a goon with guns to come after me, to make me pay taxes. That pisses me off, and you wouldn't like the outcome of that encounter.

It's antipluralist, it's idiotic and it's pointless.

Not everyone believes as strongly as do you in the virtues of pluralism, I guess.

I think the anarchocapitalist cause would be better served by cooperating with other non-mainstream groups to make the "hegemony of the mediocre" (i.e. the two-party system) make some room... for everyone.

  Who would you recommend? The Communists? Greens? The lefty 'anarchists' who don't really want to get rid of government, they just don't like this government?
  This is a quandary I face as a member of my state's Libertarian Party - should we coordinate with the greens, socialists, constitutionalists, etc. to try to change the state's ballot access laws (and good luck to us on that endeavor) even though our platforms have little or nothing in common and may even have things about which we vehemently disagree.

It seems to me that the A/C ideal is not to get a seat at the table, it's to get rid of the table.

[Andreas]

What's the plan right now? Serve as de-facto ground support for the Republican arm of the Hegemonic Mediocracy?
You need to break open the two-party system somehow - otherwise you'll simply be used and abused.

That's where pluralism works: If you can say to the crypto-fascists (the 'anarchists' you talked about), the commies, the greens and the whatever-eens - Listen, we don't believe in what you believe, and you don't believe in what we believe, but right now we're none of us getting heard, and our whole nation suffers from it. That's the truth, you know. The inactivity of the people, brought about by the "there's no hope of breaking the two-party system anyway" feeling, is hurting your entire nation. How can y'all let that happen? And keep happening? The tea-party was trying for about two seconds, before they were co-opted by the Not-the-Michael fan club. Occupy is another potential vessel for change, but that's now being vilified by people who could actually use it for something good.

You need a revolution, badly. The very fact that people have this idea that the two-party system can't be beat is HORRIFYING! I mean, that ought to be one hell of a wake-up call.

But I guess defeatism is easier.

[macsnafu]

What's the plan right now? Serve as de-facto ground support for the Republican arm of the Hegemonic Mediocracy?
You need to break open the two-party system somehow - otherwise you'll simply be used and abused.

Now you're talking strategy and tactics.  I seriously doubt that playing by "their" rules is the way to make significant change.  Many argue for evolution, not revolution.  And to some extent, we are already seeing that.  Private security, arbitration and mediation services, home schooling, even online piracy all work against government control.  How effective these tactics are is debatable, but in many of these cases, these actions are done more out of necessity than by any anarchist desire to get rid of the government.  Thus, education and spreading the word must also be part of the strategy.

[Sieggy]

Ummm . . . has anyone else picked up on the fact that the male cop has his left arm behind his back and appears to be getting something? I suspect he's going to plant something on Nicole or in her pack . . . after all, the spy just made a call to have her picked up, and it looks like the cops are on his payroll (or someone's payroll, anyway)

[Bob G]

What's the plan right now? Serve as de-facto ground support for the Republican arm of the Hegemonic Mediocracy?
You need to break open the two-party system somehow - otherwise you'll simply be used and abused.

I see Libertarians currently, politically, like the socialists in the '20s & '30s - advocating policies so 'extreme' as to guarantee their unelectability, but causing enough of a ruckus that their agenda is advanced.

And don't forget, today's Republican party started out as a 'third' party. If the $#!+ gets too deep, there's always room for a sea change.

[macsnafu]

Ummm . . . has anyone else picked up on the fact that the male cop has his left arm behind his back and appears to be getting something? I suspect he's going to plant something on Nicole or in her pack . . . after all, the spy just made a call to have her picked up, and it looks like the cops are on his payroll (or someone's payroll, anyway)

Looks like you're right.

[UncleRice]

Curious, some of you talk like you expect the US to survive more than another decade or two. I figured a group of anarchist wouldn't be so easily fooled by the group thought of "the US is forever". I would have expected you all to be thinking about what is going to replace it.

[Andreas]

Curious, some of you talk like you expect the US to survive more than another decade or two. I figured a group of anarchist wouldn't be so easily fooled by the group thought of "the US is forever". I would have expected you all to be thinking about what is going to replace it.

Sometimes a thing dies, yet its corpse keeps moving. Maybe the USA died a long time ago, and the present situations is driven by corpse-maggots. I fear that if the remains of the corpse finally becomes incapable of continued unlife, that the maggots will have grown strong enough to take control of whatever comes after, too.

[macsnafu]

Curious, some of you talk like you expect the US to survive more than another decade or two. I figured a group of anarchist wouldn't be so easily fooled by the group thought of "the US is forever". I would have expected you all to be thinking about what is going to replace it.

I might be surprised, but let's just say that I'm not holding my breath.