Taxation is wrong...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Where a group of individuals gather for mutual benefit their association can be described as a society. Within that group they make a mutual commitment to define and abide by an agreed set of rules. Those rules determine the types of acceptable actions and reactions that serve as limits and forms of behaviors that the group chooses to design as a framework of the members interactions. The group as a whole determines how it should conduct itself. In a modern large society that original political system has evolved into government as we know it.

As a society, we have collectively determined how our government should conduct itself. The definitions of right and wrong have no application in this regard because the politics of human interaction will determine whether or not either ethics or morals play into the needs and desires of the majority of members within that specific society. The question of whether or not taxes are either right or wrong becomes a moot point that no individual can lay claim to being able to make that determination for any other. This is a group decision to be made.

Granted that the group in question, the taxpayers, may in fact believe that they are overtaxed and underserviced this specific group requires the democratic capital to exploit the question. A sufficient demographic can alter the political reality and determine the moral or ethical fiber of legislation, if that is the direction chosen by the group. The sad reality is that only those individuals of substantial financial means are able to provide themselves with the level of services that they desire without the assistance of society as a whole. Most people are content with the concept of taxation for services and therefore accumulation of sufficient demographics is the determining formula.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree, Jerry. And those of 'substantial financial means' have earned it within this system so I'm comfortable with the idea of paying back.

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.

This just means "let's cut taxes". I doubt if the current government will even convince the public to approve large CBC cuts, so 0% is indeed a tough target.

[Renegade]

Where a group of individuals gather for mutual benefit their association can be described as a society. Within that group they make a mutual commitment to define and abide by an agreed set of rules. Those rules determine the types of acceptable actions and reactions that serve as limits and forms of behaviors that the group chooses to design as a framework of the members interactions. The group as a whole determines how it should conduct itself. In a modern large society that original political system has evolved into government as we know it.

For the most part we individually are born into the rules of our society. We did not get together agree on a set of rules for our mutual benefit. The nature of the rules mean that some benefit and some do not.

Let's apply your logic to a situation which existed in the 18th and 19th century, slavery in the US. Undoubtedly slaves were part of US society. Undoubtedly the slaves received some benefits in that their food and shelter were provided. Some of them were forcibly introduced into the community, some were born into it. Do you think that the slaves "make a mutual commitment to define and abide by an agreed set of rules"? Overall these rules did not benefit them and were imposed upon them by the larger society.

I will also state that the definitions of right and wrong are important and it is clearly incorrect that "politics of human interaction will determine whether or not either ethics or morals play into the needs and desires of the majority of members within that specific society" as it applies to slavery. We can all agree that slavery is wrong because it is coerced.

[Michael Hardner]

Renegade,

Slavery is not wrong simply because it is coerced. If people willingly sold themselves as slaves, it would still be wrong. Your analogy seems to follow the logic that because the US had slavery, majority rule is wrong.

In my opinion, your example shows that majority rule isn't perfect - that gross transgressions still happen. That is why we have a constitution to counterbalance the majority. Is it still perfect ? No. But we need to come up with something better than going back to the 19th century.

Although I don't agree with Charles' general thesis, I do think that examining where money is spent would be an excellent exercise. There are, in my opinion, many corners of the bureaucracy that can be eliminated and probably many that could use more support.

[Renegade]

MH,

Slavery is not wrong simply because it is coerced.

Why then in your opinion is it wrong?

If people willingly sold themselves as slaves, it would still be wrong.

I'm not sure I'd agree. However, if people willing sold themselves it wouldn't really be slavery would it?

Don't we (to a limited extent) do this anyway in that we sell our labour to an employer in exchange for benefits?

Your analogy seems to follow the logic that because the US had slavery, majority rule is wrong.

No I'm not saying that majority rule is simply wrong. What I am saying is that simply because the majority deem it to be acceptable, doesn't make it right. I use slavery as an example to demonstrate that point.

In my opinion, your example shows that majority rule isn't perfect - that gross transgressions still happen. That is why we have a constitution to counterbalance the majority. Is it still perfect ? No. But we need to come up with something better than going back to the 19th century.

I agree, majority rule isn't perfect and gross transgressions happen. Examples abound of majorities opressing the minority. The constitution, while intended to protect the rights of the minority isn't perfect either. It only protects certain minority groups against discrimination and only protects a limited set of rights. (As an aside, it specificly names the minorities, it deems wothy of protection. What happens in 300 years when there are new minority groups?). The constitution provides very little protection of economic rights. What exactly in the constitution prevents the majority from deciding that the minority should pay 100% of the taxes?

Although I don't agree with Charles' general thesis, I do think that examining where money is spent would be an excellent exercise. There are, in my opinion, many corners of the bureaucracy that can be eliminated and probably many that could use more support.

No argument from me here, but even more fundamental in my opinion is to examine the reason for taxation.

It is obvious that taxation pays for services, but beyond that taxation also pays for wealth redistribution. It that fair, and if so by who's standard of fairness?

[jdobbin]

It's an interesting way of thinking. I don't know that it could work except on a small level. Perhaps a province or municipality could try it. Many policy changes come only in increments. It would be hard to introduce something on this scale.

[Michael Hardner]

MH,

Why then in your opinion is it wrong?

Because a slave is robbed of all their rights.

If people willingly sold themselves as slaves, it would still be wrong.

I'm not sure I'd agree. However, if people willing sold themselves it wouldn't really be slavery would it?

Don't we (to a limited extent) do this anyway in that we sell our labour to an employer in exchange for benefits?

We sell our services. It's a big stretch to equate that to slavery.

No I'm not saying that majority rule is simply wrong. What I am saying is that simply because the majority deem it to be acceptable, doesn't make it right. I use slavery as an example to demonstrate that point.

I agree with you.

I agree, majority rule isn't perfect and gross transgressions happen. Examples abound of majorities opressing the minority. The constitution, while intended to protect the rights of the minority isn't perfect either. It only protects certain minority groups against discrimination and only protects a limited set of rights. (As an aside, it specificly names the minorities, it deems wothy of protection. What happens in 300 years when there are new minority groups?). The constitution provides very little protection of economic rights. What exactly in the constitution prevents the majority from deciding that the minority should pay 100% of the taxes?

The groups aren't named in the Canadian document, which is the source of a lot of debate. And, nothing prevents a 100% tax system.

No argument from me here, but even more fundamental in my opinion is to examine the reason for taxation.

It is obvious that taxation pays for services, but beyond that taxation also pays for wealth redistribution. It that fair, and if so by who's standard of fairness?

By the majority's standard of fairness, or mob rule. The payoff is social stability. There's a tendency, I've found, to extend personal morality far into the dealings of the political economy. Sometimes it's valid, sometimes it's not.

[Renegade]

Because a slave is robbed of all their rights.

While I don't agree that someone who willingly gives up their rights is being "robbed of all their rights", I won't belabour the point in this thread.

The groups aren't named in the Canadian document, which is the source of a lot of debate.

I'm not sure what you mean. The constitution specificly mentions "without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. " My interpretation is that minorities which are grouped by the above named attributes are specificly named in the constitution.

And, nothing prevents a 100% tax system.

Exactly my point. Your point was that the constitution was intended to protect the minority from transgressions by the majority. I have shown that as far as taxation is concerned the constitution provides no protection whatsoever. So given that, why should those who's funds are being forcibly extorted believe that there is justification in our taxation scheme?

By the majority's standard of fairness, or mob rule. The payoff is social stability. There's a tendency, I've found, to extend personal morality far into the dealings of the political economy. Sometimes it's valid, sometimes it's not.

I've already shown that the majority's standard of fairness cannot always be judged as "right" by an impartial party. You have agreed that the majority's standards need to be counterbalanced or gross inequities can occur. The point is that with taxation there is no counterbalance, and inequites ARE occuring. Given this, I think that it is valid to call taxation (at least the system as it now is) wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

While I don't agree that someone who willingly gives up their rights is being "robbed of all their rights", I won't belabour the point in this thread.

Well done ! I should have used a better phrase...

I'm not sure what you mean. The constitution specificly mentions "without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. " My interpretation is that minorities which are grouped by the above named attributes are specificly named in the constitution.

Also "other groups", which was read in to include homosexuals.

Exactly my point. Your point was that the constitution was intended to protect the minority from transgressions by the majority. I have shown that as far as taxation is concerned the constitution provides no protection whatsoever. So given that, why should those who's funds are being forcibly extorted believe that there is justification in our taxation scheme?

They can believe whatever they want. I would bet 99% of them accept the idea of taxes.

I've already shown that the majority's standard of fairness cannot always be judged as "right" by an impartial party. You have agreed that the majority's standards need to be counterbalanced or gross inequities can occur. The point is that with taxation there is no counterbalance, and inequites ARE occuring. Given this, I think that it is valid to call taxation (at least the system as it now is) wrong.

What inequities ? It's a bad analogy to slavery because a person is either a slave or they're not. A taxpayer, on the other hand, is a taxpayer whether they pay 1% or 100%. If you want to guarantee property rights in the constitution then fine, but that only acts as a paper-thin safeguard against totalitarian communism.

[Renegade]

Also "other groups", which was read in to include homosexuals.

True, but I doubt that any court would include an overtaxed individual into "other groups".

They can believe whatever they want. I would bet 99% of them accept the idea of taxes.

Basicly your argument boils down to it's the will of the majority so tough luck for the minority. Tell me why not extend that argument to homosexuals. (ie if the majority doesn't think they should marry, then homosexuals can believe what the want about their right to marriage).

What inequities ? It's a bad analogy to slavery because a person is either a slave or they're not. A taxpayer, on the other hand, is a taxpayer whether they pay 1% or 100%. If you want to guarantee property rights in the constitution then fine, but that only acts as a paper-thin safeguard against totalitarian communism.

Any time coercion exist in the tax system it is an inequity. While I can see and agree with an argument that a basic set of services must be provided for by the government, the government goes far beyond the basic set and then coerces individuals to pay for it. Further, the costs are not allocated according to who benefits from the service resulting in further inequity.

I would not just property rights enshrined in the constitution, but protection for the taxpayer for services which are unilateraly imposed. For example, I think taxpayers should be able to opt out out of any service and not have to pay the tax to support that service (eg EI, health care). I understand that it is not possible in every case to opt out, but there is no governance as to the level of tax burden and how that burden is distributed. That is left to the whim of the government.

[Michael Hardner]

Basicly your argument boils down to it's the will of the majority so tough luck for the minority. Tell me why not extend that argument to homosexuals. (ie if the majority doesn't think they should marry, then homosexuals can believe what the want about their right to marriage).

You have to decide if you're talking about some sort constitional "rights" to 0% tax - an unlikely situation - or just a change to the existing tax laws. Your 'tough luck' for the minority comment makes me think you don't understand the distinction there.

And despite the fact that the constitution hasn't changed since the early 1980s, homosexuals still had to wait until the politics gave them the momentum to push it through in the last few years. If you had anything close to 40% of people believing there should be no taxes, then you'd see some progress on your issue on the political front.

Any time coercion exist in the tax system it is an inequity.

As I suspect, you're equating paying "forced" taxes - any tax - with slavery. And the only thing they have in common is that coercion is present, which is the case with any enforced law. So the inequity is that we live in countries which forces us to do things by law. The only truly equitable nation would be lawless, then, right ?

While I can see and agree with an argument that a basic set of services must be provided for by the government, the government goes far beyond the basic set and then coerces individuals to pay for it. Further, the costs are not allocated according to who benefits from the service resulting in further inequity.

I would not just property rights enshrined in the constitution, but protection for the taxpayer for services which are unilateraly imposed. For example, I think taxpayers should be able to opt out out of any service and not have to pay the tax to support that service (eg EI, health care). I understand that it is not possible in every case to opt out, but there is no governance as to the level of tax burden and how that burden is distributed. That is left to the whim of the government.

Well, that's where I thought you stood on this. You haven't convinced me, but there's 30,000,000 more out there you can try this argument on.

[Charles Anthony]

I feel like I am getting caught by friendly-fire here in this thread!!!

Where a group of individuals gather for mutual benefit their association can be described as a society. Within that group they make a mutual commitment to define and abide by an agreed set of rules.

This generalization is like sweeping dirt under a rug without focussing on anybody's responsibility.

Show me how any single person agrees to the "mutual commitment" at all.

As a society, we have collectively determined how our government should conduct itself.

No, we have not.

That is like saying "as a society, we have collectively determined that when it rains, the crops will grow."

Granted that the group in question, the taxpayers, may in fact believe that they are overtaxed and underserviced this specific group requires the democratic capital to exploit the question. A sufficient demographic can alter the political reality and determine the moral or ethical fiber of legislation, if that is the direction chosen by the group.

Unfortunately, the only power that YOU have on how your government conducts itself is by holding up a single umbrella or alternatively, dumping your rain-barrel. In other words, you have to pay your taxes and shut up. You have no practical influence at all.

And those of 'substantial financial means' have earned it within this system so I'm comfortable with the idea of paying back.

That is not fair at all. You skipped over the true extent of the injustice.

YOU may be happy paying back but your decision to support taxation policy is not just: "This is my fair share. I will throw it into the pot to "help" everybody."

Your decision is more accurately: "This is my fair share and that is your fair share and this is his fair share and that is her fair share and so on and so on and EVERYBODY MUST throw all of that into the pot whether they are happy with the amount or not."

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.

This just means "let's cut taxes".

No. It means more than that. [or at least I am trying to make it mean more than that! it is my fault for not being clear...]

What I am suggesting is that we understand how economies operate WITHOUT government taxation and focus tax cuts in those directions. I am suggesting a decision-making model on how to trim the fat where none exists.

Lo an behold! Here is an example of how to apply it:

For example, I think taxpayers should be able to opt out out of any service and not have to pay the tax to support that service (eg EI, health care). I understand that it is not possible in every case to opt out, but there is no governance as to the level of tax burden and how that burden is distributed.

This can also be extended to public schooling and education. A lot of jurisdiction still require parents to pay for public schools even if their children go to private schools or are homeschooled.

In a purely non-publicly funded (in other words, zero taxation economy) health care, we would see user fees and privatization. Understanding how they work, even if they are hypothetical, help to integrate those policies into a combination economy.

A lot of arguments against user fees and privatization in health care are thin: "No! That will create two tiered health care!" like as if we did not have multi-tiered health care already. Those arguments are as intelligent and workable as saying: "No! They are bad!" despite the mechanics of user fees and privatization objectively reducing the burden on the system. Combining the mechanics of both systems will reduce the burden of taxation.

[Riverwind]

This can also be extended to public schooling and education. A lot of jurisdiction still require parents to pay for public schools even if their children go to private schools or are homeschooled.

Countries with mandatory and free public primary education are wealthier that countries without. The effect of free (for the parents) public education is most obvious in Africa where cultures are similar but some countries have free eductation and others don't.

IOW - every in society benefits if their neighbors children are educated.

Humans benefit from working groups - we are herd animals. To work in groups their must be rules. Rules must be enforced if they are to have any meaning. Enforcing rule always requires some form of coersion. In other words, some form of coersion is a necessary part of human society. In modern times we try to minimize that co-ersion but we can never eliminate it.

[Charles Anthony]

IOW - every in society benefits if their neighbors children are educated.

In general, yes. However, I will still argue that the mechanics of it make it wrong.

If I am a beer producer and I ship my product to beer stores, my business benefits if taxes subsidize gasoline prices.

Humans benefit from working groups - we are herd animals. To work in groups their must be rules. Rules must be enforced if they are to have any meaning.

No. That is where you are very wrong. I will explain how an understanding of "lawlessnes" contradicts your premise with simple modern examples.

The classic examples are the plastic bank/credit card and the soda can. Every wonder how it is that all of the different companies make them the EXACT same size? Try to explain that with "rules" that must be enforced.

In modern times we try to minimize that co-ersion but we can never eliminate it.

Yes. The distinction that I am making is that if we all have a more profound understanding of how competitive and true capitalist economies operate, we will realize that there is a lot of harmony that does not need coersion and the enforcement of rules. A lot of cooperation occurs naturally. However, a lot of cronyism requires coersion.

[Michael Hardner]

That is not fair at all. You skipped over the true extent of the injustice.

YOU may be happy paying back but your decision to support taxation policy is not just: "This is my fair share. I will throw it into the pot to "help" everybody."

Your decision is more accurately: "This is my fair share and that is your fair share and this is his fair share and that is her fair share and so on and so on and EVERYBODY MUST throw all of that into the pot whether they are happy with the amount or not."

Fair is a subjective term. Those at the top of the economic ladder derive great benefit from their relationship to the society as a whole. Extrapolating personal matters of right and wrong over the entire economy is a philosophical exercise only.

And no one has responded to the point I've made that this system existed in the past, and was eventually eliminated in favour of our current social arrangement. The very systems that you're decrying were in place in every country that prospered, and generated wealth for all of its citizens.

If you want to see how the systems you're proposing work in practice, look at the third world.

[Charles Anthony]

Extrapolating personal matters of right and wrong over the entire economy is a philosophical exercise only.

- as it is in any other smaller scale situation.

And no one has responded to the point I've made that this system existed in the past, and was eventually eliminated in favour of our current social arrangement.

I think you are completely wrong. Taxation has always existed.

The very systems that you're decrying were in place in every country that prospered, and generated wealth for all of its citizens.

Are you associating taxation-public-spending economies prospered directly as a result of taxation?? the proserity would not have been as great without taxation?

If you want to see how the systems you're proposing work in practice, look at the third world.

No.

Most third world nations are poor because of powerful people coercing and muscling around weaker people.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Charles there is no nation on this earth that currently exists without taxation in one form or another. It is simply a political fact of life, nations have governments and governments have expenses. I agree the withholding income taxes are the bane of our existance, but I believe that that particular form of taxation can be eliminated without adverse effect to society.

To revert to your commentary on society in general, groups of humanity have been gathering from the begining of our evolution. There is safety is numbers. It is to our advantage to interact with other humans and we have done so.

The complete freedom to opt out of taxes already exists in this nation. You don't have to pay them if you do not want to. You can take a vow of poverty, move to the boondocks and live off of crown land as a prospector never owning the land but yet still live on it. There are ways around things if you choose to be independent. The vast majority of citizens prefer not to live that way, and because of that a system of taxation levys is applied to provide the various services that the public has allowed the government to create and maintain.

Taxation need not be as complicated and painful as it is, and government programs need not be cut to reduce the expense to citizens with a little out of the box thinking. In fact public programs can be expanded and citizens could receive even greater benefits than they currently do if only they set aside their preconcieved notions our current socio-political situation. It is possible to change, in fact change is the only sure thing we can reasonably expect in life.

[Charles Anthony]

Charles there is no nation on this earth that currently exists without taxation in one form or another. It is simply a political fact of life, nations have governments and governments have expenses.

With all due respect, I know that and you do need to tell me that. I expect taxation to exist forever. I still see it as being wrong.

You can say the same thing for pollution. We will always do some damage and leave an imprint on the environment even if we live a very minimalist existence. All animals do.

I still see pollution as a wrong that should be minimized as much as possible.

Zero pollution would be perfect for the environment although never attainable.

That is the principle I am discussing.

To revert to your commentary on society in general, groups of humanity have been gathering from the begining of our evolution. There is safety is numbers. It is to our advantage to interact with other humans and we have done so.

Again, it sounds like you are missing my point. I do not oppose social organization at all except when coersion is not involved.

To illustrate: voluntary army is good organization and conscription army is bad organization.

The complete freedom to opt out of taxes already exists in this nation. You don't have to pay them if you do not want to.

No.

That is not a complete freedom to opt out.

There are ways around things if you choose to be independent.

What you describe is that the ONLY way around taxation is to give up your current property. That is not complete freedom and I think that is wrong.

The vast majority of citizens prefer not to live that way,

and the ones who are born into it and do not prefer to live that way have to leave.

and because of that a system of taxation levys is applied to provide the various services that the public has allowed the government to create and maintain.

and abuse without recourse.

Taxation need not be as complicated and painful as it is, and government programs need not be cut to reduce the expense to citizens with a little out of the box thinking. In fact public programs can be expanded and citizens could receive even greater benefits than they currently do if only they set aside their preconcieved notions our current socio-political situation.

We agree.

I accept that taxation will always exist and my anarchist model of zero-tax is what I believe to be a tool in leading people to think outside of the box.

[Michael Hardner]

Are you associating taxation-public-spending economies prospered directly as a result of taxation?? the proserity would not have been as great without taxation?

I would say that that's true, yes. The US wouldn't have been able to build its education systems, roads, military or the space program without adequate funding.

QUOTE(Michael Hardner @ Aug 4 2006, 06:38 PM) *

If you want to see how the systems you're proposing work in practice, look at the third world.

No.

Most third world nations are poor because of powerful people coercing and muscling around weaker people.

All of that happens due to an absence of law, which is what you're advocating.

[Charles Anthony]

Most third world nations are poor because of powerful people coercing and muscling around weaker people.

All of that happens due to an absence of law, which is what you're advocating.

No. You are misrepresenting my words PARTICULARLY IN THIS THREAD. I advocate an absence of coersion.

I would enjoy discussing non-coersion related to law and order in a different thread if anyone is up for the challenge.

The US wouldn't have been able to build its education systems, roads, military or the space program without adequate funding.

I am not convinced that a built up publicly-funded education system leads to a more prosperous economy compared to a privately-funded one. Please tell me how you make that assertion.

Tell me how tax-funded road construction (and maintenance) leads to a more prosperous economy compared to any-other-funded roads whether it be through more roads or better roads.

These are my favorite: please tell me how ANY military or space program (regardless of how they are funded!) lead to any prosperity -- except for the military industrial complex elite and their cronies and parasitic bureaucrats. Hocus-pocus "multiplier" effects in the economy do not count for this one.

CAVEAT: I would hope your summaries to touch upon any "right" and "wrong" aspects in the context of a "Moral & Religous Issues" thread. I also expect you to justify your standard or measurement of "prosperity" in an economy.

[Michael Hardner]

I am not convinced that a built up publicly-funded education system leads to a more prosperous economy compared to a privately-funded one. Please tell me how you make that assertion.

A public system provides education to pretty much 100% of the nation's children. That provides a wider talent pool for the nation as a whole.

Tell me how tax-funded road construction (and maintenance) leads to a more prosperous economy compared to any-other-funded roads whether it be through more roads or better roads.

More roads and better roads.

These are my favorite: please tell me how ANY military or space program (regardless of how they are funded!) lead to any prosperity -- except for the military industrial complex elite and their cronies and parasitic bureaucrats.

How about the microchip ?

Hocus-pocus "multiplier" effects in the economy do not count for this one.

CAVEAT: I would hope your summaries to touch upon any "right" and "wrong" aspects in the context of a "Moral & Religous Issues" thread. I also expect you to justify your standard or measurement of "prosperity" in an economy.

Sorry, but I didn't do this.

Maybe you can provide a source for this statement, which I find hard to believe: "Taxation has always existed. "

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

CAVEAT: I would hope your summaries to touch upon any "right" and "wrong" aspects in the context of a "Moral & Religous Issues" thread. I also expect you to justify your standard or measurement of "prosperity" in an economy.

'Prosperity' is a subjective term. If I owned everything, I would be prosperous, to the 'summum bonum' degree. Then I could watch everyone else starve to death, if that was my wont.

I would enjoy discussing non-coersion related to law and order in a different thread if anyone is up for the challenge.

I'll take up that challenge. (mind you, there was something else of yours I have been remiss in responding to, I'll try to find it.

[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.

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?

Sorry I just missed this previously. I'm suggesting just that, Alberta seperate from Canada if further attacks on our economy are launched from Ottawa. Canada doesn't work for us so we should leave.

Harper's firewalls idea is tempting, but your correct, it would be violating the social contract Alberta shares by being in Canada. I would be hypocritical to state in other threats that I'm not happy with Indians saying they aren't Canadian and having Canadian benefits, and at the same time say Alberta can.

So your right, the only moral solution to further raids on Alberta's wealth by Ottawa should be full seperation, removal of Alberta from Canada. Collectively, if a majority of Albertans want to go, we should leave, we have the freedom to do so.

And that's why taxation is morally justified, especially taxation on Alberta by Ottawa through transfers. We haven't left yet, so we are bound by Canada's governmental social contract.

And you can do that, you can denounce your Canadian citizenship whenever you want to. You can find a remote Island or whatever and live there tax free. You choose where you want to live and therefore what taxes to pay.

[Charles Anthony]

Forgive me, I am not being clear. You made the assertions without explaining them to counter my position and I am asking you to prove or demonstrate your assertions explicitly.

I am not convinced that a built up publicly-funded education system leads to a more prosperous economy compared to a privately-funded one. Please tell me how you make that assertion.

A public system provides education to pretty much 100% of the nation's children. That provides a wider talent pool for the nation as a whole.

In this case, prove that:

1) a public system provides 100% education to children and a non-public (where a public one does not exist) one can not

2) corellation between public (and non-public) education and prosperity

3) corellation between non-public (again, where a public one does not exist) education and prosperity

Tell me how tax-funded road construction (and maintenance) leads to a more prosperous economy compared to any-other-funded roads whether it be through more roads or better roads.

More roads and better roads.

Prove that tax-funded construction and maintenance leads to more and better roads. Also, prove the relationship between roads and prosperity.

These are my favorite: please tell me how ANY military or space program (regardless of how they are funded!) lead to any prosperity -- except for the military industrial complex elite and their cronies and parasitic bureaucrats.

How about the microchip ?

Tell me how the burden of taxation is required to produce a microchip.

Hocus-pocus "multiplier" effects in the economy do not count for this one.

CAVEAT: I would hope your summaries to touch upon any "right" and "wrong" aspects in the context of a "Moral & Religous Issues" thread. I also expect you to justify your standard or measurement of "prosperity" in an economy.

Sorry, but I didn't do this.

I know you did not state any of those. I am asking you to explain your original assertions in the context of the thread.

A "multiplier effect" is an old macro-economic principle that describes short-term gain from government spending. That gain is greater than the initial spending but only in the short-term. Some people use them to justify government spending because it improves the economy -- nevertheless, they can have nefarious effects in the long term by affecting interest rates, future tax rates, inflation and crowding-out other markets.

In general, there are two things that distinguish my argument from yours:

1) I do not assume that "prosperity" can be related to "right" or "wrong"

2) I do not assume that our economy can not produce the same "prosperity" without taxation, you do

You brought up "prosperity" in an "economy" as a counter to my argument but you have not made the connection.

Maybe you can provide a source for this statement, which I find hard to believe: "Taxation has always existed. "

I stated that in response to your assertion:

And no one has responded to the point I've made that this system existed in the past, and was eventually eliminated in favour of our current social arrangement.

You are right. It is impossible to prove my statement that taxation has ALWAYS existed. I was remiss. I should have have said that "taxation has always existed throughout the ages of recorded history notably from the ancient Roman empire to today" instead.

CAVEAT: I would hope your summaries to touch upon any "right" and "wrong" aspects in the context of a "Moral & Religous Issues" thread. I also expect you to justify your standard or measurement of "prosperity" in an economy.

'Prosperity' is a subjective term. If I owned everything, I would be prosperous, to the 'summum bonum' degree. Then I could watch everyone else starve to death, if that was my wont.

That is possible. That is why I would not relate taxation to prosperity.

So your right, the only moral solution to further raids on Alberta's wealth by Ottawa should be full seperation, removal of Alberta from Canada. Collectively, if a majority of Albertans want to go, we should leave, we have the freedom to do so.

And that's why taxation is morally justified, especially taxation on Alberta by Ottawa through transfers. We haven't left yet, so we are bound by Canada's governmental social contract.

That is like the robber saying "Your money or your life!" to you. Since he is giving you a way to save your life, he is not morally justified in taking your money. That is why I say taxation is morally wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

In this case, prove that:

1) a public system provides 100% education to children and a non-public (where a public one does not exist) one can not

2) corellation between public (and non-public) education and prosperity

3) corellation between non-public (again, where a public one does not exist) education and prosperity

Are you doubting that a publicly funded education system would provide more education than a voluntary private education system ? Do I really need to prove this to you ?

Prove that tax-funded construction and maintenance leads to more and better roads. Also, prove the relationship between roads and prosperity.

Are you doubting that roads paid for by voluntary donations would have less funds at their disposal than roads paid for by mandatory taxation ?

Tell me how the burden of taxation is required to produce a microchip.

It's not required, but if research is heavily funded from forced taxation, then there will be more of it.

In general, there are two things that distinguish my argument from yours:

1) I do not assume that "prosperity" can be related to "right" or "wrong"

2) I do not assume that our economy can not produce the same "prosperity" without taxation, you do

You brought up "prosperity" in an "economy" as a counter to my argument but you have not made the connection.

Ok.

And no one has responded to the point I've made that this system existed in the past, and was eventually eliminated in favour of our current social arrangement.

You are right. It is impossible to prove my statement that taxation has ALWAYS existed. I was remiss. I should have have said that "taxation has always existed throughout the ages of recorded history notably from the ancient Roman empire to today" instead.

Are the taxation systems of the middles ages relevant to this conversation ?