Taxation is wrong...

[Renegade]

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 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.

To be consistent, why is it the Albertans separate and take Alberta with them, and I should leave and have to find a remote island? Why can't I just stay and declare myself independant just like the Albertans would, or why can't the Albertans leave and find some remote island to live and create their own social contract?

[Renegade]

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.

I am not advocating that people have the right to not being taxed at all. Let me define what I mean by taxation. By "taxation" I mean the right of the government to raise funds. Through history, and even in the world today, governments raise money through a variety of means. In the past some countries did it via colonialism. Today some countries leverage the natural resources of the country and don't have any income or sales taxes. Yet others rely on pay-per-use systems.

What I am against is the threat of force used in our current system. We have no defense either in our constitution or law to the unilateral power by the government to tax to the level it chooses to.

The only real defense is tax-avoidance and tax-evasion. Tax avoidance is prevelant among the wealthy and self-employed as they can afford the effective use of tax-minimization structures and loopholes. Tax evasion is prevalant in the service industries. (Look at the use of cash in the home construction industry as an example). The biggest loser in this is the working middle class. They have little ability to evade as their income is taxed at source, and they don't make enough to use tax avoidance techniques.

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.

It seems to me simply morally wrong that one has to wait until society's sensibilities catch up in order to declare an injustice. In my view, morals are not something which is relative to how a given society feels, but universal in nature. In some parts of the world girls 12 years old and younger are sold, against their wishes, as child brides. It is consider perfectly acceptable in those societies. Does that make it any less wrong?

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 ?

No, actually most laws define what we cannot do. They are reasonable based upon their justification to protect the rights or property of others.

I don't see any similar justification in a law which says "You must pay taxes or else...". Who's rights are being violated if I don't pay?

[Charles Anthony]

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 ?

Only if you insist it reflects directly on "prosperity" and you can connect it to "right" as opposed to a "wrong" outcome.

Making Peter pay for Paul's education without Paul's consent or choice is wrong regardless of who prospers.

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

No. That is not my argument. My argument is that it is still wrong.

If I take money from you and spend it on charity, I still took money from you. What I did is wrong even if it helps more people and even if those people in turn directly or indirectly "help" you.

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.

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

Stop. Is that bait? I hope that it is a mistake.

You made the assertion that no-taxation systems existed before. You made that assertion to justify your position.

I said taxation existed long before.

Now, you are are asking whether the issue is relevant????? You are the one who raised that issue.

What I am against is the threat of force used in our current system. We have no defense either in our constitution or law to the unilateral power by the government to tax to the level it chooses to.

I am curious to know: what defense would you want? Would it be a type of opt-out clause?

[Renegade]

What I am against is the threat of force used in our current system. We have no defense either in our constitution or law to the unilateral power by the government to tax to the level it chooses to.

I am curious to know: what defense would you want? Would it be a type of opt-out clause?

I think a couple of things can be done.

1. The purpose of taxation should be restricted to funding for services provided. Taxation should not be used to raise funds for any other purpose.

2. Each citizen should be given the option to either accept the service and the corresponding cost, or to opt out. The government should not prohibit opting out without sufficient justification. (For example, the government may decide not let citizens opt out paying for fire protection services as the effect of fire can impact more than any one individual).

3. The government should not be able to prohibit any service provided from also being provided privately (eg health insurance, EI). Where the government must provide a service as a monopoly, it must provide sufficient justification.

4. The cost of the services provided should be distributed according to the benefit recieved. (ie user pays).

[Charles Anthony]

1. The purpose of taxation should be restricted to funding for services provided. Taxation should not be used to raise funds for any other purpose.

The problem that I fear with this condition is that it might be impossible to explicitly specify policy. What fail-safe mechanism can prevent it from evolving over time into misuse of funds?

For example, today we may accept tax-funded police, law and order services. Tomorrow, we collectively believe that road safety is part of those services and we assign the police the tasks of patrolling streets for dangerous driving, speeding and seat-belt enforcement. The next day, a friend (who owns a lumber pulp and paper mill) of a politician lobbies his friend to criminalize marijuana because the hemp manufacturer is able to produce paper at double the rate and with less by-products. Under the guise of protecting the public from danger, we have public money going into more law enforcement.

Outside of law enforcement, cronies constantly lobby government to support their personal commerce. Laws and public spending are often presented as public services to dupe the electorate.

An other example could be electricity and energy. We may designate them as essential services. However, instead of using clean wind-power, we burn coal and gas to power our generators. Why? because some crony-friend-of-the-government owns a local power plant or some secondary industry related to it.

2. Each citizen should be given the option to either accept the service and the corresponding cost, or to opt out. The government should not prohibit opting out without sufficient justification. (For example, the government may decide not let citizens opt out paying for fire protection services as the effect of fire can impact more than any one individual).

This sounds like sweet music to my ears! Hallelujah!

However, to be nit-pickey, I do not like your example. Private fire insurance policies might resolve that issue.

3. The government should not be able to prohibit any service provided from also being provided privately (eg health insurance, EI). Where the government must provide a service as a monopoly, it must provide sufficient justification.

Again, this sounds good but personally, I can not think of what monopoly government service would would be exempt. Please provide a possible example.

4. The cost of the services provided should be distributed according to the benefit recieved. (ie user pays).

More music to my ears!

[Renegade]

1. The purpose of taxation should be restricted to funding for services provided. Taxation should not be used to raise funds for any other purpose.

The problem that I fear with this condition is that it might be impossible to explicitly specify policy. What fail-safe mechanism can prevent it from evolving over time into misuse of funds?

For example, today we may accept tax-funded police, law and order services. Tomorrow, we collectively believe that road safety is part of those services and we assign the police the tasks of patrolling streets for dangerous driving, speeding and seat-belt enforcement. The next day, a friend (who owns a lumber pulp and paper mill) of a politician lobbies his friend to criminalize marijuana because the hemp manufacturer is able to produce paper at double the rate and with less by-products. Under the guise of protecting the public from danger, we have public money going into more law enforcement.

Outside of law enforcement, cronies constantly lobby government to support their personal commerce. Laws and public spending are often presented as public services to dupe the electorate.

An other example could be electricity and energy. We may designate them as essential services. However, instead of using clean wind-power, we burn coal and gas to power our generators. Why? because some crony-friend-of-the-government owns a local power plant or some secondary industry related to it.

There are only two mechanism's to prevent such abuse. First by giving the taxpayer the power to opt out. If sufficient taxpayer find that the service is nothing more than a sham to pad pockets, they will opt out, thus depriving the system of funding. Second, what a service is can be more rigorously defined, and courts can be used to enforce such a definition.

However, to be nit-pickey, I do not like your example. Private fire insurance policies might resolve that issue.

I wasn't meaning fire insurance. I was meaning the fire trucks, hydrant infrastructure and firefighters, however I am open to a better example.

3. The government should not be able to prohibit any service provided from also being provided privately (eg health insurance, EI). Where the government must provide a service as a monopoly, it must provide sufficient justification.

Again, this sounds good but personally, I can not think of what monopoly government service would would be exempt. Please provide a possible example.

I was thinking of something like the military which needs to be a unified force for defense of the country.

[Charles Anthony]

There are only two mechanism's to prevent such abuse. First by giving the taxpayer the power to opt out. If sufficient taxpayer find that the service is nothing more than a sham to pad pockets, they will opt out, thus depriving the system of funding.

I think you have struck gold with this principle. This would be an excellent fail-safe. However, I think that if it is applied to all services without exception, we would still get your fair outcome (maybe even better). Thus, it might not be necessary to require the courts to define a service.

Second, what a service is can be more rigorously defined, and courts can be used to enforce such a definition.

I am pessimistic. I still feel that it may be vulnerable to abuse and I do not know enough about legislation to see a fail-safe. Please give me an example.

I wasn't meaning fire insurance. I was meaning the fire trucks, hydrant infrastructure and firefighters, however I am open to a better example.

I understand.

What I envision is a combination between fire insurance companies establishing partnerships with private fire brigades.

For example, you want a house financed, the finance company requires insurance and the insurance company has its own alarm system and fire rescue company. Simultaneously, with your opt-out clause, every house owner will also be able to get coverage through the tax-funded public fire department. If it is possible in the market for a private fire brigade to deliver service effectively or better, it will survive. Opting-out would provide that market incentive.

Again, this sounds good but personally, I can not think of what monopoly government service would would be exempt. Please provide a possible example.

I was thinking of something like the military which needs to be a unified force for defense of the country.

This is a tricky service to reconcile.

Naively, I would say: "Easy! Cancel the federal military!" and see small scale private security companies fill in the voids.

As an aside, crony-military-industry-companies in the Middle East hire their own security companies when they are doing construction. In war zones, these "security guards" are effectively mercenaries. My cynicism takes over and I think we can extrapolate and learn from their example. I firmly believe that the vast majority of war is commercially based.

[Renegade]

Second, what a service is can be more rigorously defined, and courts can be used to enforce such a definition.

I am pessimistic. I still feel that it may be vulnerable to abuse and I do not know enough about legislation to see a fail-safe. Please give me an example.

What a service is, is probably better defined by defining what it is not. A transfer of wealth is not a service. Hoarding of wealth is not a service. There are areas which the government funds which is arguably grey, such as foreign aid. Is that a service? In my opinion, no it's not, it is a transfer of wealth. Ultimately what a service is will ultimately be decided by whether people are willing to pay for it.

What I envision is a combination between fire insurance companies establishing partnerships with private fire brigades.

For example, you want a house financed, the finance company requires insurance and the insurance company has its own alarm system and fire rescue company. Simultaneously, with your opt-out clause, every house owner will also be able to get coverage through the tax-funded public fire department. If it is possible in the market for a private fire brigade to deliver service effectively or better, it will survive. Opting-out would provide that market incentive.

While yes I think it is possible for simultaneous public and private fire-brigades, the issue arises where there is infrastructure required which needs to be shared. In this case it is the fire hydrants and water. It would be inefficient to duplicate the system for public and private use, and if eveyone needed fire insurance coverage, you couldn't really let him opt out of paying for the hydrant infrastructure.

Also what happens if you don't need your house financed? Does that mean you can opt out of fire insurance and paying for the fire fighting infrastructure? Let's say you opt out, your house catches fire and burns to the ground, but not only does it burn, it causes your neighbours houses to burn down too. Should we still allow the opting out?

Again, this sounds good but personally, I can not think of what monopoly government service would would be exempt. Please provide a possible example.

I was thinking of something like the military which needs to be a unified force for defense of the country.

This is a tricky service to reconcile.

Naively, I would say: "Easy! Cancel the federal military!" and see small scale private security companies fill in the voids.

As an aside, crony-military-industry-companies in the Middle East hire their own security companies when they are doing construction. In war zones, these "security guards" are effectively mercenaries. My cynicism takes over and I think we can extrapolate and learn from their example. I firmly believe that the vast majority of war is commercially based.

The military is a tough one, because while it doesn't provide visible service to the taxpayer, it is undoubtedly necessary for self-defence and to fulfill our obligations to allies. It would be possible to do away with the military, but only if all countries do the same. Unfortunately it won't happen and I can see justification to not allow taxpayers to opt out of paying for the military.

[Charles Anthony]

What a service is, is probably better defined by defining what it is not. A transfer of wealth is not a service. Hoarding of wealth is not a service. There are areas which the government funds which is arguably grey, such as foreign aid. Is that a service? In my opinion, no it's not, it is a transfer of wealth. Ultimately what a service is will ultimately be decided by whether people are willing to pay for it.

I agree with what you say but not everybody else does and that is the problem. Arguments supporting foreign aid as a service to Canada usually sound like:

"By helping poor countries we minimize the chance of wars erupting in trouble spots. Therefore, it is better for Canada if a trading partner is not threatened by war." and I have even heard:

"By helping poor countries we keep diseases under control which would otherwise be transfered to Canadians in the future."

These grey areas can be manipulated ultimately creating transfers of wealth -- usually with a middleman skimming off the top. Since not everybody will agree upon what constitutes a service, I find it more fair to eliminate the discretion and by denying all of them. The alternative is that the government ends up playing favorites.

While yes I think it is possible for simultaneous public and private fire-brigades, the issue arises where there is infrastructure required which needs to be shared. In this case it is the fire hydrants and water.

That sounds like a tough one to combine. However, it might be solved by giving fire brigades individual turf. Hydrants in your neighborhood are owned by one company,

It would be inefficient to duplicate the system for public and private use, and if eveyone needed fire insurance coverage, you couldn't really let him opt out of paying for the hydrant infrastructure.

That is easy. Whoever owns the land upon which the fire hydrant rests would rent it or have a water meter. The fire company would be charged after using it. Similar to how we charge houses for electricity or water now.

Also what happens if you don't need your house financed? Does that mean you can opt out of fire insurance and paying for the fire fighting infrastructure? Let's say you opt out, your house catches fire and burns to the ground, but not only does it burn, it causes your neighbours houses to burn down too. Should we still allow the opting out?

Your premium might be based on the insurance coverage of your neighbors. If your neighbor does not have insurance nor collateral, you pay with a higher premium. Also, you can sue your neighbor.

I realize that my solution is cold-hearted but it can still cover the bases. It can be treated in the same way as one would deal with spilling pollution and harmful waste into other people's property.

The military is a tough one, because while it doesn't provide visible service to the taxpayer, it is undoubtedly necessary for self-defence and to fulfill our obligations to allies.

It is the "obligation to allies" that isdifficult to circumvent. I do believe that domestic security can be improved if there was less of a monopoly on armed force and self-defense. To play the devil's advocate, I could ask:

Currently, is Canada's military fulfilling our obligations to our allies? what are those obligations?

Currently, is Canada's military fulfilling our needs for domestic security?

[Renegade]

Arguments supporting foreign aid as a service to Canada usually sound like:

"By helping poor countries we minimize the chance of wars erupting in trouble spots. Therefore, it is better for Canada if a trading partner is not threatened by war." and I have even heard:

"By helping poor countries we keep diseases under control which would otherwise be transfered to Canadians in the future."

These grey areas can be manipulated ultimately creating transfers of wealth -- usually with a middleman skimming off the top. Since not everybody will agree upon what constitutes a service, I find it more fair to eliminate the discretion and by denying all of them. The alternative is that the government ends up playing favorites.

Yes that is true that grey areas can be manipulated to in effect create transfers of wealth, however interpretations of intent are somewhat the reason d'etre for courts. Presuming that one can agree on the mandate of government to provide services and not wealth transfers, then if what occured was a wealth transfer in disguilse, such a matter would be before courts to decide. This is much the same situation with our rights today.

That sounds like a tough one to combine. However, it might be solved by giving fire brigades individual turf. Hydrants in your neighborhood are owned by one company,

Yes that might work.

That is easy. Whoever owns the land upon which the fire hydrant rests would rent it or have a water meter. The fire company would be charged after using it. Similar to how we charge houses for electricity or water now.

Yes I agree, except I wouldn't see it as a pay-per-use as you would for electricity especially since usage is so infrequent. You benefit if a hydrant is near your house even if you don't use it, but simply because it is available for use. Charges for the service could probably be based upon a combination of fixed and usage charges.

Your premium might be based on the insurance coverage of your neighbors. If your neighbor does not have insurance nor collateral, you pay with a higher premium. Also, you can sue your neighbor.

I realize that my solution is cold-hearted but it can still cover the bases. It can be treated in the same way as one would deal with spilling pollution and harmful waste into other people's property.

What you are pointing out is that you benefit (as demonstrated by your savings on insurance) if your neighbour is insured, and visa versa. Under normal circumstances this is not an issue because you provide him reciprocal benefit by insuring your own house. However, if you choose not to insure your own house, you are being provided a benefit for which you did not pay. That woudl seem unfair, as one of the principles I would espouse is that you should pay for benefits you recieve. I understand that you didn't choose to recieve this benefit, but I don't see a way around it.

Imagine a situation where you have no fire insurance, and your house catches fire. The fire brigade contracted by your neighbour has to put out the fire in your house simply to avoid it burning your neighbours house as well. Again you are receiving a benefit you did not pay for but in essence are riding on the coattails of others. In other words, a feeloader. I don't think freeloading should be tolerated.

Currently, is Canada's military fulfilling our obligations to our allies? what are those obligations?

Currently, is Canada's military fulfilling our needs for domestic security?

To both questions I would answer "No, not completely". However, they situation is not binary. The situation in each case would be far worse if there was no military at all.

[Charles Anthony]

however interpretations of intent are somewhat the reason d'etre for courts.

Yes. I can see that.

Yes I agree, except I wouldn't see it as a pay-per-use as you would for electricity especially since usage is so infrequent. You benefit if a hydrant is near your house even if you don't use it, but simply because it is available for use. Charges for the service could probably be based upon a combination of fixed and usage charges.

No. There is no need to combine them because they would be paid by different parties.

1) The usage fee is paid by the fire department partnered with the fire insurance company. They would pay the city for water use.

2) The fire insurance company takes care of maintenance of the water mains / sewage / infrastructure / whatever in its neighborhood.

3) The fire insurance company transfers costs to the households through premiums.

It would be like dental insurance.

Also, I just thought of something. The insurance company would probably amalgamate with the other maintenance services: roads, sewage, tree trimming, etc. It could all operate like a condominium complex. Even more: they could hire their own security guards if the neighborhood could afford it!

Imagine a situation where you have no fire insurance, and your house catches fire. The fire brigade contracted by your neighbour has to put out the fire in your house simply to avoid it burning your neighbours house as well.

That is not a problem.

The fire department sues me and takes my property. It would be easy to demonstrate that my burning house threatened my neighbor. It would be the same as if I plotted to burn my neighbors house from my side of the fence. I should be treated the same way.

Again you are receiving a benefit you did not pay for but in essence are riding on the coattails of others. In other words, a feeloader. I don't think freeloading should be tolerated.

Actually, it is tolerated all of the time. Imagine I have the smallest house in a rich nieghborhood. The value of my house increases more than if I had a mansion in a run-down neighborhood.

However, they situation is not binary. The situation in each case would be far worse if there was no military at all.

I disagree. I can imagine our domestic security being managed with private security companies.

[Renegade]

Actually, it is tolerated all of the time. Imagine I have the smallest house in a rich nieghborhood. The value of my house increases more than if I had a mansion in a run-down neighborhood.

Yes freeloading is tolerated in our society, but it shouldn't be. I would imagine if you had a house and let it detioriate to the point where it brought down the value of your neighbour's property, they would not be pleased, and would take whatever action they can to change your course of action.

I can imagine our domestic security being managed with private security companies.

Yes I can too. I would expect the primary use of the military is for external threat.

[Charles Anthony]

Yes freeloading is tolerated in our society, but it shouldn't be.

I think it is unavoidable because it is an integral part of our freedom. Otherwise, you would have a monumental task of regulation. The basis of market economies rely on the mechanism of the freeloader taken to the extreme.

Imagine an employer that experiences an influx of local labor due to immigration. Wages go down. The employer benefits and the previous employees suffer as a result of a free-riding mechanism.

Conversely, imagine being an employer in Alberta now that wages are sky-rocketing. The previous laborers benefit as free-riders.

All markets use the same mechanics to varying degrees based on volume and market share.

I would imagine if you had a house and let it detioriate to the point where it brought down the value of your neighbour's property, they would not be pleased, and would take whatever action they can to change your course of action.

If they coerce me or invade my property, that would certainly not make it right.

How would you reconcile my deteriorating house with the market-led depreciation of a mansion in a run-down neighborhood? By imposing a policy either way, you are transfering wealth and not paying for service.

I can imagine our domestic security being managed with private security companies.

Yes I can too. I would expect the primary use of the military is for external threat.

Why the distinction between external and internal?

I would suggestion a distinction between "govenment" institution and private instituions. For example, tax-funded security/military to protect government officials at home and abroad.

Would you pemit the right to keep and bear arms?

[geoffrey]

Would you pemit the right to keep and bear arms?

I support gun ownership, people should be able to own whatever they want. But a vigilante society of private mercenary cops is kind of frightening no?

[Charles Anthony]

I support gun ownership, people should be able to own whatever they want.

Where do you draw the line?

Your next statement sounds like you would place limits.

But a vigilante society of private mercenary cops is kind of frightening no?

Not if the mercenary cops are your employees.

Not if there is a universal level playing field.

Not if everybody has the right to self-defense.

What makes you feel less frightened with our current public police forces being employees of the state?

[Renegade]

If they coerce me or invade my property, that would certainly not make it right.

How would you reconcile my deteriorating house with the market-led depreciation of a mansion in a run-down neighborhood? By imposing a policy either way, you are transfering wealth and not paying for service.

No I would not impose a policy. A policy would be difficult to implement and very subject to interpretation.

Even without policy your neighbours would coerce you by shunning you socially (as is their perogative to do).

Why the distinction between external and internal?

Because it clearly defines the mandate of the military. If I protest against some government tax policy, I wouldn't want the taxpayer-funded military used to quell the protest under the guise of protecting the government.

Would you pemit the right to keep and bear arms?

I guess it depends what you mean by arms. Possession of arms involves a conflict of rights. On one side is the right to possess weapons for self-defense. On the other side is the right of individuals not to feel that their security of person is threatened. If you let people own nuclear weapons, certainly people are threatned even if the weapons are never used.

Where would I draw the line? I would say that unless an arm can be shown to be primarily for self-defense it shoudl be restricted.

[Michael Hardner]

Renegade:

I am not advocating that people have the right to not being taxed at all. Let me define what I mean by taxation. By "taxation" I mean the right of the government to raise funds. Through history, and even in the world today, governments raise money through a variety of means. In the past some countries did it via colonialism. Today some countries leverage the natural resources of the country and don't have any income or sales taxes. Yet others rely on pay-per-use systems.

What I am against is the threat of force used in our current system. We have no defense either in our constitution or law to the unilateral power by the government to tax to the level it chooses to.

But why pick on taxation ? My country can declare war on my former countrymen for no good reason and I can't do anything about that either.

And weren't you comparing it to slavery a few posts back ?

The only real defense is tax-avoidance and tax-evasion. Tax avoidance is prevelant among the wealthy and self-employed as they can afford the effective use of tax-minimization structures and loopholes. Tax evasion is prevalant in the service industries. (Look at the use of cash in the home construction industry as an example). The biggest loser in this is the working middle class. They have little ability to evade as their income is taxed at source, and they don't make enough to use tax avoidance techniques.

In other words, cheating.

It seems to me simply morally wrong that one has to wait until society's sensibilities catch up in order to declare an injustice. In my view, morals are not something which is relative to how a given society feels, but universal in nature. In some parts of the world girls 12 years old and younger are sold, against their wishes, as child brides. It is consider perfectly acceptable in those societies. Does that make it any less wrong?

Well, how are you going to fix that ? Laws don't change themselves - people do it. If you make things work faster and more easily, there's the danger of abuse...

No, actually most laws define what we cannot do. They are reasonable based upon their justification to protect the rights or property of others. I don't see any similar justification in a law which says "You must pay taxes or else...". Who's rights are being violated if I don't pay?

Not all laws are designed to protect us from others either. Some protect us from ourselves, and others foment social peace.

[Michael Hardner]

QUOTE(Michael Hardner @ Aug 8 2006, 09:18 AM)

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 ?

Only if you insist it reflects directly on "prosperity" and you can connect it to "right" as opposed to a "wrong" outcome.

Making Peter pay for Paul's education without Paul's consent or choice is wrong regardless of who prospers.

Is the problem that it's 'wrong' or that it doesn't work ? I think the choice of whether it's right or wrong is a personal one. If you think it's wrong, all I can submit to you is that (as I think I said) extrapolating personal decisions of morality to large ethereal organizations such as government or corporations is fraught with pitfalls.

No. That is not my argument. My argument is that it is still wrong.

If I take money from you and spend it on charity, I still took money from you. What I did is wrong even if it helps more people and even if those people in turn directly or indirectly "help" you.

Ok.

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

Stop. Is that bait? I hope that it is a mistake.

You made the assertion that no-taxation systems existed before. You made that assertion to justify your position.

I said taxation existed long before.

Now, you are are asking whether the issue is relevant????? You are the one who raised that issue.

I'm willing to concede that I was wrong that taxes haven't existed before. I was thinking of income tax, graduated taxes and so forth, which I believe are recent.

But we've had similar situations in the past, be they low tax or no tax, and pity the weak in those societies.

QUOTE(Renegade @ Aug 8 2006, 09:55 AM)

What I am against is the threat of force used in our current system. We have no defense either in our constitution or law to the unilateral power by the government to tax to the level it chooses to.

I am curious to know: what defense would you want? Would it be a type of opt-out clause?

I personally think that many of the constructs that we view as part of nature, are artificial and may well be doomed with new technology anyway. Things such as laws, property and even money are only constructs of human nature. Our society is reaching its limits of what these systems that we've been building for two hundred years or so can do, and something new should probably happen soon.

I wish I had more time to devote to this thread...

[Charles Anthony]

Even without policy your neighbours would coerce you by shunning you socially (as is their perogative to do).

I agree with you that it is their prerogative. However, I would not see that as an act of coersion. They have the right to do so and that would be the start of my just punishment.

Because it clearly defines the mandate of the military. If I protest against some government tax policy, I wouldn't want the taxpayer-funded military used to quell the protest under the guise of protecting the government.

I can not resist playing the devil's advocate here: what do you think will happen if you DID protest tax policy in the only way that you could -- by not paying taxes?

I guess it depends what you mean by arms. Possession of arms involves a conflict of rights. On one side is the right to possess weapons for self-defense. On the other side is the right of individuals not to feel that their security of person is threatened.

I disagree with you. My definition of self-defense is more restrictive. I believe people have the right self-defense if their security of person is threatened but not if they "feel" their security of person is threatened. That would not be self-defense but rather a form of offense.

If you let people own nuclear weapons, certainly people are threatned even if the weapons are never used.

As ridiculous as it may seem, I would permit people to own nuclear weapons. My justification is analogous to a person carrying a deadly disease. If the diseased person is careless they can spread the disease and should suffer the consequences. If the diseased person is carefull they will not spread the disease and should not be treated differently until they threaten another person's safety.

Where would I draw the line? I would say that unless an arm can be shown to be primarily for self-defense it shoudl be restricted.

Here is a challenge to you: name a weapon that you believe CAN NOT be used primarily for self-defense.

-----

But why pick on taxation ?

Why not? It is bad and getting worse every year.

My country can declare war on my former countrymen for no good reason and I can't do anything about that either.

It sounds like you are describing something that would be qualified as "wrong" too. Are you describing foreign invasion or conscription? Be more explicit.

And weren't you comparing it to slavery a few posts back ?

If you are talking about conscription and being sent off to war, that is indeed a form of slavery.

The only real defense is tax-avoidance and tax-evasion.

In other words, cheating.

That is not cheating. It is self-defense. The tax-collector is commiting the wrongful act.

Well, how are you going to fix that ? Laws don't change themselves - people do it. If you make things work faster and more easily, there's the danger of abuse...

I do not know how to fix it. I think a good start is for more and more people coming out and having the courage to call taxation for what it truly is: wrong and not a faceless-bureaucratic-government entitlement. After that, more and more people will demand lower taxes.

----

Making Peter pay for Paul's education without Paul's consent or choice is wrong regardless of who prospers.

Is the problem that it's 'wrong' or that it doesn't work ?

First and foremost: it is wrong.

I also believe it works but everybody has a different idea on what works.

Nevertheless, even if it did not "work" I would still advocate no-tax because it is wrong. I refer to my stealing-from-Peter-to-give-to-Paul illustration.

I ask you: what do you mean by "works"? I will explain no-taxation with respect to your definition.

For me the definition of "works" is very simple: nobody forces anybody else against their will. It goes hand-in-hand with no-taxation.

I think the choice of whether it's right or wrong is a personal one.

No because my definition of "wrong" is limited to coersion: theft and assault. It is physically impossible to steal from somebody who approves. The only way that taxation is not theft is if the tax-payer is not coerced or in other words, is donated willfully. In such an instance, it is no longer taxation and I would not call it theft. The only way to make it a free-will donation is if the "tax-payer" as the option to opt-out.

If you think it's wrong, all I can submit to you is that (as I think I said) extrapolating personal decisions of morality to large ethereal organizations such as government or corporations is fraught with pitfalls.

Those pitfalls still represent injustices. I believe this is where your argument fails.

Large organizations and governments are still groups people (whose actions are usually un-governed, by the way). Every action can be attributed to the actions of a specific person. Our legal system makes it easy for people to shirk responsibility as members of corporations or governments. However, I insist that they should not be able to get away with crimes which ordinary people could not escape.

[Charles Anthony]

I'm willing to concede that I was wrong that taxes haven't existed before. I was thinking of income tax, graduated taxes and so forth, which I believe are recent.

Our modern tax system is still wrong. It is just more-complicated-collection wrong. All of my arguments and all of your arguments should be the same.

But we've had similar situations in the past, be they low tax or no tax, and pity the weak in those societies.

A couple of points:

1) it does not make sense to generalize over the whole world nor between past and present; we really do not know

2) I would still say that more tax is wrong and less tax is better

3) in the past, maybe they enjoyed different things that we will never enjoy.

For example:

maybe they did not have pollution

maybe they did not fear nuclear warfare or weapons of mass destruction (things which would not likely to have been developed without the powers of government and taxation)

maybe every young person had a 99% of growing up and taking over the father's farm, not having to worry about unemployment or education

maybe they respected (or even knew) their neighbors

Conversely, there could be a whole host of things that make life easier for us now compared to the past. However, we can not compare.

In general, I would say a social structure is wrong if it requires coersion for its support. Taxation is one type of coersion.

Things such as laws, property and even money are only constructs of human nature. Our society is reaching its limits of what these systems that we've been building for two hundred years or so can do, and something new should probably happen soon.

In what direction do you see things going?

Do you think those constructs you list are expanding or becoming obsolete?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The direction that is most desirable is the elimination of income tax. However to do so an alternative method of government revenue stream generation is required. I will always maintain that the correct means of achieving ths is through the creation of a standard transaction tax. It is possible to do this within the current parlimentary system, however I sincerely doubt it will come to pass. The best way to organize a major change such as this is through constitutional reform. The redesign of government in general would result in a system of fairness that we have yet seen as a modern society. Perhaps through this exercise the direct democracy model could be successfully applied.

[geoffrey]

I support gun ownership, people should be able to own whatever they want.

Where do you draw the line?

Your next statement sounds like you would place limits.

But a vigilante society of private mercenary cops is kind of frightening no?

Not if the mercenary cops are your employees.

Not if there is a universal level playing field.

Not if everybody has the right to self-defense.

What makes you feel less frightened with our current public police forces being employees of the state?

Am I allowed to defend myself from the mercenary cops? Can I hire someone to hit you because of a perceived trespass? Are you allowed to kill the merecenary cop that I send?

The rich have more cops then the poor, and we end up like Columbia, where you can pay for protection and exploit other in vicious rackets.

Police are definitely something that needs to stay with the state. Rule of law is a principle of a free society.

[Charles Anthony]

Am I allowed to defend myself from the mercenary cops?

You can do that right now by hiring security guards. In anarchy, you could do that too.

Can I hire someone to hit you because of a perceived trespass?

You can do that right now. You might be charged with assault unless you could prove self-defense. What are you thinking?

Are you allowed to kill the merecenary cop that I send?

Allowed? Would you be surprised if I did so in self-defense?

The rich have more cops then the poor, and we end up like Columbia, where you can pay for protection and exploit other in vicious rackets.

It is gravely naive to think that you can not pay for protection rackets today.

Today state-monopolized police are generally reactive: i.e., they attempt to catch criminals after crime is committed. They work very hard at it only to be disappointed by the courts. We put criminals back on the street. We are generally chaotic in how we practice law and order.

Police are definitely something that needs to stay with the state. Rule of law is a principle of a free society.

Nevertheless, the state does a shabby job at that because it limits personal freedom and is not accountable to the people who pay for the service: the tax-payers.

The best way to organize a major change such as this is through constitutional reform. The redesign of government in general would result in a system of fairness that we have yet seen as a modern society. Perhaps through this exercise the direct democracy model could be successfully applied.

I agree.

If Canadians had the courage to re-open the constitution, they would have the opportunity to change the current tax-spending-redistribution scheme.

[Michael Hardner]

Those pitfalls still represent injustices. I believe this is where your argument fails.

Large organizations and governments are still groups people (whose actions are usually un-governed, by the way). Every action can be attributed to the actions of a specific person. Our legal system makes it easy for people to shirk responsibility as members of corporations or governments. However, I insist that they should not be able to get away with crimes which ordinary people could not escape.

Charles.

Unfortunately, these injustices are pervasive. If you want to select taxation as the focus of your protest, I suggest there may be other areas that you might prioritize: conscription, possibly or unfairness in the justice system. If you're selecting taxation as your area of concern because you personally don't want to pay (I don't know if this is the case or not) then you should frame the argument that way.

[Michael Hardner]

Charles.

A couple of points:

1) it does not make sense to generalize over the whole world nor between past and present; we really do not know

We don't know, it's true. But we can never know - and looking at the past does tell us what happens when power accumlates without a counter balance.

2) I would still say that more tax is wrong and less tax is better

I'd say most agree with you on that.

3) in the past, maybe they enjoyed different things that we will never enjoy.

For example:

maybe they did not have pollution

maybe they did not fear nuclear warfare or weapons of mass destruction (things which would not likely to have been developed without the powers of government and taxation)

maybe every young person had a 99% of growing up and taking over the father's farm, not having to worry about unemployment or education

maybe they respected (or even knew) their neighbors

Conversely, there could be a whole host of things that make life easier for us now compared to the past. However, we can not compare.

I say that we can. The large forces that govern society are present at many points in history.

There are many good things about the past, but having a weak social safety net is not one of them.

In general, I would say a social structure is wrong if it requires coersion for its support. Taxation is one type of coersion.

Coersion is a part of even society, including tribes. The law coerces us in many ways. You can't distribute hate literature, you can't choose to take certain drugs, you can't buy a human being, even if they're willing.