Taxation is wrong...

[Charles Anthony]

Okay Charles start the tread and let us know what you think.

Sure.

Taxation is wrong because it is collected by force.

The fact that nobody can freely opt out of taxes and opt out of the supposed "benefits" funded by taxation, makes it theft or burglary.

If it was right, it would not have be expropriated with force.

If everybody agreed with it, they would give it up willingly.

Try this experiment:

Send everybody a tax assessment that says:

"Your fair share = X. Please remit X out of the goodness of your heart and socialist solidarity to your neighbor IF YOU WANT.

If you do not remit X, you will forego all of the glorious benefits of imposed socialism."

Any difference between the forced tax collection and the experimental collection proves that taxation does not represent the wishes of the tax-payer.

The burden of proof (taxation is not theft) is on the taxman because he has been caught red-handed.

[jdobbin]

Okay Charles start the tread and let us know what you think.

Sure.

Taxation is wrong because it is collected by force.

Nationhood by its very nature is an act of force. I can't opt out of Canada in terms of my responsibilities anymore than I can give up paying taxes. Rules of society keep us from building where we want to, walking around naked, taking whatever food we can find, not recognizing someone else's property...well, I could go on.

I would be thrown in the clink if I disobeyed any of these rules. And I would be forced to comply.

So is it wrong?

[gc1765]

In some cases, taxation is essential. For example, for security/police reasons. It wouldn't be easy for someone to "opt out" of such a service. For example, if someone gets robbed in front of a police officer, the police officer isn't going to wait and check to see if the victim has payed their taxes or not, the police officer should immediately go after the robber. Yet someone has to pay the salary of that police officer. Certain services, I suppose, there could be some sort of "opting out", but for others it would not be practical.

[Charles Anthony]

Nationhood by its very nature is an act of force.

In that case, it is wrong!

Does nationhood require taxation?

I can't opt out of Canada in terms of my responsibilities

What are your responsibilities?

Rules of society

What are those rules? Who makes them? Who is society?

keep us from building where we want to, walking around naked, taking whatever food we can find, not recognizing someone else's property...well, I could go on.

When was the last time that YOU personally:

built where you wanted to?

walked around naked?

took whatever food you can find?

did not recognize someone else's property?

If you felt compelled to do any of the above, what stopped you???

You give yourself less credit than you deserve. Most people respect their neighbors out of true respect -- not because they will be hauled away by police. Most people act dignified out of a sense of modesty -- not because they will be hauled away by police.

If you felt compelled to violate somebody else's property, are you such a fool to forget that your victim has the right to self-defense? and would fight back?

You do not need police to be a good person.

Today, the thieves and burglars do not seem to stop even though we have police.

And I would be forced to comply.

So is it wrong?

Unless you are doing harm to somebody or violating their property, you are not doing wrong.

if someone gets robbed in front of a police officer, the police officer isn't going to wait and check to see if the victim has payed their taxes or not, the police officer should immediately go after the robber.

Whether it is practical or not is irrelevant to whether it is right or wrong.

On the issue of the practicality of police administration -- to use your example -- it would still be possible. How do you think protection rackets work? People protect their own turf. Yes, they do so ruthlessly but they do it.

Yet someone has to pay the salary of that police officer. Certain services, I suppose, there could be some sort of "opting out", but for others it would not be practical.

Yeah and the Guardian Angels are disproving that one! They do it for free!

Despite the nitty-gritty details of these specific examples, would it be right for me to steal from you if I was going to donate the proceeds to charity?????????

Is it wrong to NOT give to charity?

[Michael Hardner]

Charles,

jdobbin makes some good points. Being part of a country means that one is 'forced' - for the most part - to obey the rules set by the majority.

If you're going to use the term 'force' to describe the state of citizenship, then go ahead but it's seems like philosophical grandstanding to me - the system works, it's proven, and if you have something better, then put it forward.

[jdobbin]

Nationhood has always required some form of taxation since before the Romans.

I'd say the responsibilities of the citizen in a nation is to obey the rules whatever they are.

And you're making me blush about walking around naked. <heh> I didn't violate the walking around naked bit but my wife did at the public beach (far enough from young eyes I assure you). Nothing stopped her although the RCMP might have put a crimp in her plans.

As for the argument about property, I think that only a nation can recognize your personal property and protect it. And the only way they can protect it is through taxation.

You can try to protect what you think is your property but if you do not have help recognizing it and protecting it, you won't have it for long.

[Charles Anthony]

Being part of a country means that one is 'forced' - for the most part - to obey the rules set by the majority.

No but rather: "- to obey the rules set by the people with power."

The majority of people do nothing and say nothing and have no control. When was the last time you were consulted for determining public policy? Probably not as often as you were forced to pay up.

If you're going to use the term 'force' to describe the state of citizenship,

I am calling it like it is. What euphemism would you call submitizenship?

then go ahead but it's seems like philosophical grandstanding to me - the system works, it's proven,

If what I am saying is philosophical grandstanding to you, saying the system "works" and is "proven" sounds helplessly naive and foolish to me.

In Canada, many people pay more than half of their income in taxes (that is an immense proportion) and many people rightfully complain about decreasing services. There are working poor in Canada. I trust that your comments do not mean to be elitist, but it is not fair to dismiss the practical outcomes and realities that the true Canadian taxpayers face. What you call "working" and "proven" is not the entire picture.

Many people fight blindly tooth and nail against the principle of privatization of various public services. For them, taxation and poor quality and no choice in service is their goal (usually just to cover their true intensions of protecting union or public service jobs). What is working? and for whose benefit?

and if you have something better, then put it forward.

Yes! Zero taxation.

My whole point is that an understanding of how to operate WITHOUT taxation can act as a very effective baseline for judging and evaluating how to fairly REDUCE tax burdens so that shift away from the Canadian steal-from-your-neighbor-entitlements culture.

I'd say the responsibilities of the citizen in a nation is to obey the rules whatever they are.

Whatever they are?? I do not believe you are serious.

Forgive me but I can not help but laugh.

I didn't violate the walking around naked bit but my wife did at the public beach (far enough from young eyes I assure you). Nothing stopped her although the RCMP might have put a crimp in her plans.

Just staying with the comedy: what do you think were her plans?

As for the argument about property, I think that only a nation can recognize your personal property and protect it.

Once again, I doubt you are serious. Nevertheless....

People defend their property all of the time. Farmers hunt ground-hogs and coyotes and nefarious sheep robbers. Urbanites hire security companies to provide custom services that no police force could provide. Free enterprise to the rescue!!!

Rich people hire body-guards.

You can try to protect what you think is your property but if you do not have help recognizing it and protecting it, you won't have it for long.

What if YOU had the courage and strength and money to protect it yourself? and the only invader was a stupid foolish weakling? What excuse would you have for taxation?

I have simple questions for all of you happy-tax-payer-collectors out there:

Can you honestly say you are getting your money's worth?

Can you honestly say that you can not think of one single example of how your taxes are too high? and that public spending is wasteful?

[jdobbin]

I have simple questions for all of you happy-tax-payer-collectors out there:

Can you honestly say you are getting your money's worth?

Can you honestly say that you can not think of one single example of how your taxes are too high? and that public spending is wasteful?

There is always room for improvement but I believe in taxes. I don't know a government on the planet that doesn't.

[Charles Anthony]

There is always room for improvement but I believe in taxes.

Give me one example of a tax that you think should NOT be abolished but could concretely be improved.

[jdobbin]

]Give me one example of a tax that you think should NOT be abolished but could concretely be improved.

The gasoline tax. All money should go to infrastructure.

[Charles Anthony]

What is YOUR idea of how the gasoline tax should be improved?

Is it where the money is going? or the percentage collected? or both?

What is your recommendation for improving the gasoline tax and why? what is wrong with it going into general revenue?

Assume that I know nothing about the tax.

[gc1765]

Whether it is practical or not is irrelevant to whether it is right or wrong.

On the issue of the practicality of police administration -- to use your example -- it would still be possible. How do you think protection rackets work? People protect their own turf. Yes, they do so ruthlessly but they do it.

I guess it depends on what exactly the definition of right and wrong is. If right & wrong means what benefits the majority of people, then I would say taxing people for the sake of security is right. I think the vast majority of people wouldn't mind paying taxes if it meant they were less likely to be victims of crimes. If the definition is what is fair, I would also say my example is fair since everyone pays and everyone benefits. No one would have to pay for something they didn't want, except the very small minority who would rather live without security than pay taxes (I'm assuming it would be a minority, I don't actually know). I'm not sure how protection rackets work. Does it depend on the 'turf'? What happens when you leave your 'turf' to travel somewhere else, are you still protected?

[jdobbin]

What is YOUR idea of how the gasoline tax should be improved?

Is it where the money is going? or the percentage collected? or both?

What is your recommendation for improving the gasoline tax and why? what is wrong with it going into general revenue?

Assume that I know nothing about the tax.

At the moment, not all the tax goes to infrastructure. It goes to general revenue. I have no problem with the precentage if it is going to improve infrastructure. So the basic change would be to allocate it where it is supposed to go.

[Charles Anthony]

No one would have to pay for something they didn't want, except the very small minority who would rather live without security than pay taxes

So.... stealing is "right" or "fair" if the "majority" of people agree to it? Sorry. Not for me.

(I'm assuming it would be a minority, I don't actually know).

Imagine if it was not a minority. Where would YOU draw the line?

I'm not sure how protection rackets work. Does it depend on the 'turf'? What happens when you leave your 'turf' to travel somewhere else, are you still protected?

My example of protection rackets is an allusion to rough parts of town and places where the police do not go.

In general, a thugProtector goes to each shop or resident (I will call him TaxPayer) and makes an agressive offer: "Pay me X amount every so often and I will protect you from criminals." If the person refuses to pay, the thugProtector sends his thugEnforcers to rough up the TaxPayer on the next day. On the third day, the thugProtector returns with the same offer and says: "See, I told you so! You need my protection." The TaxPayer pays to stay safe (whether he is smart enough to figure out what is going on is irrelevant). In a nut-shell, that is how a protection racket operates in simple terms.

When the TaxPayer becomes trully threatened by a real criminal, the thugProtector steps in to eliminate the competition. The thugProtector wants to continue making money. This is what drug-dealers and pimps do today. They eliminate the competition. For the TaxPayer, the protection racket actually acts as a defacto police and security force. If YOU were a thugProtector, you would make sure that your TaxPayers were safe. You do not want them to move off of your turf. Just like a property manager wants retail tenants to stay prosperous so that they can continue to pay rent, the thugProtector wants the TaxPayers to be prosperous.

I know it sounds ruthless and anarchist. It is.

I am not saying that protection rackets are good. I believe that they are real and natural and they exist today. You do not have to go very far to find them. The victims of protection rackets have the same tax liabilities as everybody else, but the "police" do not serve them. Furthermore, the victims of protection rackets have a fighting chance to escape the racket and even to conquer it. This is what Don Corleone did to become "The Godfather" in the Mario Puzo novels - he bumped off a thugProtector.

As a taxpayer, you are treated the same as a victim of a protection racket but you will never have the opportunity to escape taxes and in fact, you will be treated more harshly even at the expense of your livelihood. Nobody cares about protecting your prosperity.

What is YOUR idea of how the gasoline tax should be improved?

At the moment, not all the tax goes to infrastructure. It goes to general revenue. I have no problem with the precentage if it is going to improve infrastructure. So the basic change would be to allocate it where it is supposed to go.

So.... why do you accept the government waste of the gasoline tax revenue?

Not every person is rich enough to be able to dismiss wasted money, why do you accept (or impose) that waste for your fellow citizens as well?

If you are right about the gasoline tax, what is wrong with the government? why do they not agree with you?

I would say that it is a result of big government and systemic waste. I would also say that bureacrats skim off the top AT YOUR EXPENSE and you accept it.

I could ask why infrastructure? environmentalists would say that gasoline creates pollution and so the gas taxes revenue should go to cleaning up the environment and yadda yadda yadda.

Once you impose a tax on everybody, there is no way to have everybody agree with the amount or the spending. Any way you cut it, the result of taxation will invariably lead to waste and or mismanagement. Since not everybody agrees with it, you will also invariable be taking money without consent. The only fair tax is "zero tax" and let people spend money on infrastructure if they want it.

[jdobbin]

So.... why do you accept the government waste of the gasoline tax revenue?

Not every person is rich enough to be able to dismiss wasted money, why do you accept (or impose) that waste for your fellow citizens as well?

If you are right about the gasoline tax, what is wrong with the government? why do they not agree with you?

I would say that it is a result of big government and systemic waste. I would also say that bureacrats skim off the top AT YOUR EXPENSE and you accept it.

I could ask why infrastructure? environmentalists would say that gasoline creates pollution and so the gas taxes revenue should go to cleaning up the environment and yadda yadda yadda.

Once you impose a tax on everybody, there is no way to have everybody agree with the amount or the spending. Any way you cut it, the result of taxation will invariably lead to waste and or mismanagement. Since not everybody agrees with it, you will also invariable be taking money without consent. The only fair tax is "zero tax" and let people spend money on infrastructure if they want it.

I accepted the gax tax to general revenue because it was needed for some time to eliminate the deficit and to pay for services like environmental protection.

After the deficit was eliminated, I believed the gas tax should apply to the infrastructure deficit. And widely, the Liberal looked to move some of the tax to muncipalities for infrastructure. I look forward to the Harper government continuing that policy.

If zero tax is good so much zero government.

[gc1765]

No one would have to pay for something they didn't want, except the very small minority who would rather live without security than pay taxes

So.... stealing is "right" or "fair" if the "majority" of people agree to it? Sorry. Not for me.

My point is that it's not stealing if a person wants to give their money away. I am happy to pay money for the protection of the police, so I don't consider anyone to be stealing from me.

(I'm assuming it would be a minority, I don't actually know).

Imagine if it was not a minority. Where would YOU draw the line?

Well that is a good question actually. Obviously 100% of people will never be able to agree on something, so where is the line drawn? In my particular example of security I would estimate (just a wild guess here) that at least 99% of people (at least non-criminals) would pay money to be safe. So I would say that is pretty fair...except maybe to the other 1%. But then again if there is nothing that everyone can agree on, is anything "fair"?

My example of protection rackets is an allusion to rough parts of town and places where the police do not go.

In general, a thugProtector goes to each shop or resident (I will call him TaxPayer) and makes an agressive offer: "Pay me X amount every so often and I will protect you from criminals." If the person refuses to pay, the thugProtector sends his thugEnforcers to rough up the TaxPayer on the next day. On the third day, the thugProtector returns with the same offer and says: "See, I told you so! You need my protection." The TaxPayer pays to stay safe (whether he is smart enough to figure out what is going on is irrelevant). In a nut-shell, that is how a protection racket operates in simple terms.

When the TaxPayer becomes trully threatened by a real criminal, the thugProtector steps in to eliminate the competition. The thugProtector wants to continue making money. This is what drug-dealers and pimps do today. They eliminate the competition. For the TaxPayer, the protection racket actually acts as a defacto police and security force. If YOU were a thugProtector, you would make sure that your TaxPayers were safe. You do not want them to move off of your turf. Just like a property manager wants retail tenants to stay prosperous so that they can continue to pay rent, the thugProtector wants the TaxPayers to be prosperous.

I know it sounds ruthless and anarchist. It is.

I am not saying that protection rackets are good. I believe that they are real and natural and they exist today. You do not have to go very far to find them. The victims of protection rackets have the same tax liabilities as everybody else, but the "police" do not serve them. Furthermore, the victims of protection rackets have a fighting chance to escape the racket and even to conquer it. This is what Don Corleone did to become "The Godfather" in the Mario Puzo novels - he bumped off a thugProtector.

As a taxpayer, you are treated the same as a victim of a protection racket but you will never have the opportunity to escape taxes and in fact, you will be treated more harshly even at the expense of your livelihood. Nobody cares about protecting your prosperity.

Given your example of thughprotectors roughing up their own customers, I would again guess that the vast majority of people would choose to have a police force protecting them then these thugprotectors. So, I think my comments above would still hold true.

[Charles Anthony]

What is the purpose of government in your opinion?

There are different ways of answering that question.

First, there is no purpose of "government" per se, other than to give us the illusion of leadership and happiness and peace and whatever else with which we choose to fool ourselves. It is like asking "What is the purpose of the Canadian military?" it all depends on what YOU want. There is no objective absolute.

Second, more appropriately, the purpose of government officials, in my opinion is a more concrete issue to examine. I believe that the purpose of government officials is simple: to make money and keep their jobs. Part of their purpose involves their "friends" who need to be re-paid with patronage and no-bids contracts and AdScam. I also believe that government officials enjoy their jobs. Specifically, they enjoy the prestige and the bossy (everybody-listening-to-me) elements. That explains why some of them seem blind to their hopeless and dismal election prospects and never learn to quit while they are ahead. They live for the spotlight.

Third, if Istop being cynical for a moment, I would say that the purpose of government is to do what people do not want to do or can not figure how to do on their own but still want.

Now we come to a very important question:

If all taxes were eliminated, could we dispense witn it?

I believe we can have government (albeit, it will be drastically different) without taxation. Think of your soccer club:

you are a freely participating member

you follow the rules

you can quit if you want and join a different club

you pay the membership fee

The soccer club is a form of "government" but it does not force you to participate and pay taxes.

Your school board councillors (often volunteers) form a government.

It is more responsible to look at ways to reduce government size. We will never eliminate government, but by understanding how real social networks function effectively WITHOUT forced government, it helps to model policies and government reform to be more efficient.

After the deficit was eliminated, I believed the gas tax should apply to the infrastructure deficit. And widely, the Liberal looked to move some of the tax to muncipalities for infrastructure. I look forward to the Harper government continuing that policy.

What about people who disagree with you? what should they think of the use of their money?

I do not think it is fair to ignore them when considering the "fairness" of a policy.

My point is that it's not stealing if a person wants to give their money away. I am happy to pay money for the protection of the police, so I don't consider anyone to be stealing from me.

It is stealing from the people who do not agree.

You may agree to it (and therefore, no theft from you) but as a policy, you are IMPOSING it also on all of your fellow citizens whether they agree with you or not. Your fellow citizen who does not agree does not have a choice. That is what makes it wrong.

Obviously 100% of people will never be able to agree on something, so where is the line drawn? In my particular example of security I would estimate (just a wild guess here) that at least 99% of people (at least non-criminals) would pay money to be safe. So I would say that is pretty fair...except maybe to the other 1%. But then again if there is nothing that everyone can agree on, is anything "fair"?

I would say NO when it comes to enforced policy.

We may not have a 100% agreement on how much caffeine should be in our favorite soda but we are not forced to buy or drink it.

However, if we are dealing with taxation and public policy (actions which physically force participation) your chances of any of it being fair is slim.

As a taxpayer, you are treated the same as a victim of a protection racket but you will never have the opportunity to escape taxes and in fact, you will be treated more harshly even at the expense of your livelihood. Nobody cares about protecting your prosperity.

Given your example of thughprotectors roughing up their own customers, I would again guess that the vast majority of people would choose to have a police force protecting them then these thugprotectors. So, I think my comments above would still hold true.

No. The police force is the same as the protection racket.

If you do not pay your taxes, the police will send you to jail and confiscate your property. There are people in jails and people who lost their homes throughout Canada TODAY because they could not afford to pay their taxes. You do not have the opportunity to fight taxes.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

So.... stealing is "right" or "fair" if the "majority" of people agree to it? Sorry. Not for me.

Should have put the 'stealing' in quotes, because taxation is not against the law, so therefore not 'stealing'.

You do not have the opportunity to fight taxes.

Sure you do, you just have to make sure you win, and then re-write the law to call taxation 'stealing'. An anarchist might wish to do so, but the anarchist would have to wield an 'overwhelming force'...which would likely mean you would need a large force of people marching to the same tune...

Mind you, that would be an oxymoron. "A large group of like-minded anarchists"...all of them putting aside some individual preferences for the greater good of the group...in that endeavour, one might accidentally create one of those horrible 'societies'...or worse...a 'nation'!

[geoffrey]

It's not stealing, by living here you agree to abide by the social contract, which involves taxation and governments. You have the right to leave and not pay taxes, so you are paying by choice.

[Charles Anthony]

Should have put the 'stealing' in quotes, because taxation is not against the law, so therefore not 'stealing'.

From now on, I will write "stealing" when I am discussing in the "Arbitrary & Legislative Issues" category but in the "Moral & Religious Issues" category stealing is taking somebody's property without consent. It put in the same category as the "Golden Rule" thing.

You do not have the opportunity to fight taxes.

An anarchist might wish to do so, but the anarchist would have to wield an 'overwhelming force'...which would likely mean you would need a large force of people marching to the same tune...

No.

Enough open-minded non-reflexive-thieves may gradually become convinced and model their behavior to continue respecting their fellow man and property.

Mind you, that would be an oxymoron. "A large group of like-minded anarchists"...all of them putting aside some individual preferences for the greater good of the group...in that endeavour, one might accidentally create one of those horrible 'societies'...or worse...a 'nation'!

I agree. Your statement makes no sense to me as it does not for you.

Furthermore, nobody does anything for "the greater good" of anything -- show me how they do. Why would you (or anybody for that matter) be so deluded as to use "the greater good" as a standard? I do not believe it is dellusion. I believe it is evasion of responsibility.

by living here you agree to abide by the social contract,

Uh.... show me that "social contract" because I want to read up on it. Do you have a citation?? I am curious to learn about its "Moral & Religious Issues" implications.

You have the right to leave and not pay taxes, so you are paying by choice.

The burglar would give you the choice: "Your money or your life!" in a similar moral exchange. That is why I make the reference to the protection racket.

[Renegade]

It's not stealing, by living here you agree to abide by the social contract, which involves taxation and governments. You have the right to leave and not pay taxes, so you are paying by choice.

Interesting argument you put forward geoffery. In other threads you have advocated that if the federal government takes too much of Alberta's revenues, Alberta should be independant (ie opt out of the taxation contract). Does your argument not hold then? Are not Albertans by virtue of the fact that they "choose" to live in Canada bound by the terms of the social contract to be bound to the wishes of the majority of Canadians? If they didn't like it could they Albertans not emmigrate?

BTW, if you do believe that Alberta can opt out of a social contract by declaring themselves independant, why can't I have that same privlidge? (ie delcare myself a nation of 1, not subject to Canadian laws or social contract?

[Michael Hardner]

Charles,

If what I am saying is philosophical grandstanding to you, saying the system "works" and is "proven" sounds helplessly naive and foolish to me.

In Canada, many people pay more than half of their income in taxes (that is an immense proportion) and many people rightfully complain about decreasing services. There are working poor in Canada. I trust that your comments do not mean to be elitist, but it is not fair to dismiss the practical outcomes and realities that the true Canadian taxpayers face. What you call "working" and "proven" is not the entire picture.

You say, roughly, that believing the current system works is hopelessly naive and foolish yet you submit a 'zero tax' plan that you think would solve our problems. That is much more naive and foolish.

The system you propose has already been tried. Power (money) accumulates and the 'choices' of those who don't have it becomes very limited. You're apparently unhappy with the tax system so you would throw us back to the 1600s, and wreck many lives, to save yourself some money.

People complain about decreasing services. Are services decreasing ? If so, what are the reasons ? What can be done ?

There are working poor in Canada. Do they not benefit from government services such as EI and nationalized healthcare ?

If I haven't given the entire picture, it's because we live in this picture and we're aware of its shortcomings and benefits. Your picture is drastically different than anything we've seen in centuries. I doubt you could anticipate the full effects of your proposal so I won't ask you to paint it for us.

[Charles Anthony]

why can't I have that same privlidge? (ie delcare myself a nation of 1, not subject to Canadian laws or social contract?

A nation of one. Feels like a breath of fresh air to me!

You say, roughly, that believing the current system works is hopelessly naive and foolish yet you submit a 'zero tax' plan that you think would solve our problems. That is much more naive and foolish.

I am saying more than that.

I am suggesting a baseline from which to gauge current taxation patterns and how to plan tax changes.

I believe that a clear acceptance of taxation for what it truly is -- an imposition -- makes for a wise starting point. Defining taxation as an obligation to a nebulous social contract is perfect for hiding waste and duping the tax-payer.

Your picture is drastically different than anything we've seen in centuries.

Our current taxation is less than a century old. I doubt that public waste and cronyism is much younger.

I doubt you could anticipate the full effects of your proposal so I won't ask you to paint it for us.

I will paint it for you: I believe in charity and I recognize charity.

I have a lot of faith in my fellow man to be charitable to one another. I recognize charity today succeding at helping people who are truly in need. Charities do not have the irresponsible budgets and revenue sources of the gun registry nor of Adscam.

[Michael Hardner]

I have a lot of faith in my fellow man to be charitable to one another. I recognize charity today succeding at helping people who are truly in need. Charities do not have the irresponsible budgets and revenue sources of the gun registry nor of Adscam.

Charities have indeed been accused of mismanagement and waste. I'm glad you have faith in your fellow man, but do you think they'll contribute equal amounts of tax to charity to help the needy ?

The military, physical infrastructure, and the like are to be supported by charity ? I'm sure things will be as great as they were in the middle ages.

You're proposing drowning the baby in the bathwater.

[Charles Anthony]

Charities have indeed been accused of mismanagement and waste.

Yes -- like any other business.

The difference is that they do not expropriate funds.

I'm glad you have faith in your fellow man, but do you think they'll contribute equal amounts of tax to charity to help the needy ?

I have no doubt that the true demand for charity can be met.

CAVEAT: I am being nitpicky here. The "amount" means nothing. The result and delivery of service is the important issue.

The military, physical infrastructure, and the like are to be supported by charity ?

Of course not. They can all be met by business. They do not need to expropriate funds.

I'm sure things will be as great as they were in the middle ages.

You're proposing drowning the baby in the bathwater.

I agree. In fact, my belief is worse.

I believe that much of your baby (military and infrastructure) should rightly be thrown out. I will explain.

Very little (if not all) of what we call "infrastructure" needs to be built or maintained by public works. Private enterprise can do the same if "government" did not monopolize various markets.

Most military expeditions can be paired down to serving commercial interests. Thus, rather than crony-capitalists using politicians or conscription or making people feel guilty for not serving their country, private companies should hire militia and mercenaries to do their dirty work instead. Furthermore, if the corruption of government can be taken out of the picture, I believe warring factions can be paid off to avoid war. Everybody has a price.

-------

I realize zero taxation is practically hypothetical. One issue is repeatedly never being addressed. I fear that I am not being clear enough.

I will preface this issue with the following analogy: a school test score.

We all aim to get an A+ on a test by studying all of the material and getting NONE of the answers wrong.

Most of us are not going to get zero wrong on the test. Nevertheless, 100% is still our baseline for judging our performance and improvement.

Admittedly, people will not relinquish the comfort of taxation, I am proposing that we evaluate our current taxation and public spending using ZERO taxes as our baseline even if we accept some taxation.

Rather than thinking our taxman and the "government" are entitled to our money, we should see it as the reverse: we can get our services privately, therefore, "Taxman, the onus is on YOU to serve us and to serve us fairly if not better." The gun registry and Adscam and polls such as Federal Taxes, Do you feel you get your money's worth? and charity, just to name a few, demonstrate room for improvement and the need for a change in attitude.