Taxation is wrong...

[myata]

If that is truly the case, it is enough proof for me to say that nobody wants taxation. Therefore, taxation is wrong.

This is something that can be easily testing by bringing it up in an election. No taxation and no guaranteed gevernment services. How did the Libertarian party of Canada (does it exist btw?) do in the elections last time?

The above statement is incorrect because of incompleteness. People don't want taxation but they do need the benefits coming from it. So, most settle at what they deem as acceptable cost of those benefits. By the same token one could say that working is wrong because many don't like doing it (but still want benefits it provides).

[Riverwind]

I was forced to participate in a group benefit plan at my last employer.

You picked that job.

You picked this country. Why don't you just move to another country if you don't like the taxes here. Whatever rational you come up with to explain why you do not/cannot move is no different from the rational that I would use to explain why I had no choice but to accept employment at companies with a mandatory benefit plan.

[Charles Anthony]

People don't want taxation but they do need the benefits coming from it.

They may need them but nobody owes anybody anything other than mutually leaving eachother alone.

So, most settle at what they deem as acceptable cost of those benefits.

They settle only because they are able to avoid the responsibility of their actions: taking money from their neighbor.

By the same token one could say that working is wrong because many don't like doing it (but still want benefits it provides).

No. There is no connection.

Taxation is wrong because it is taken by force.

You picked this country. Why don't you just move to another country if you don't like the taxes here.

No, I did not pick this country because I was born here.

Whatever rational you come up with to explain why you do not/cannot move is no different from the rational that I would use to explain why I had no choice but to accept employment at companies with a mandatory benefit plan.

Of course it is different.

What you call "no choice but to accept employment" is false. You should be saying "someone else is obligated to provide for me" instead.

[Riverwind]

You picked this country. Why don't you just move to another country if you don't like the taxes here.

No, I did not pick this country because I was born here.

You have the choice to leave at any time - being born here does not change anything. The company I worked for did not have the compulsory benefit plan when I joined. I could have left but chose not to because the benefits of employment there still outweighed the costs.

What you call "no choice but to addept employment" is false. You should be saying "someone else is obligated to provide for me" instead.

You are not making any sense. You choose to continue to live in this country becuase the benefits outweigh the costs. By making the choice to live in this country you are choosing to pay the taxes. You are trying to evade your personal responsibility by insisting you have no choice but to stay in the country.

[Figleaf]

People do want police protection, a justice system, roads, parks, you name it. These things require funds, and so, taxes are necessary. It is necessary to enforce them to redress the incentive to free-ride.

People need shoes, too. Why not add that to the tab?

In terms of political theory, there's no reason why not. In terms of economic theory, because it is usually more efficient to have private goods provided thru the free market.

If people didn't want government service they could elect different governments.

When was the last time YOU could elect anything?

Me alone, never. Me with my fellow citizens, every few years.

[Figleaf]

People don't want taxation but they do need the benefits coming from it.

They may need them but nobody owes anybody anything other than mutually leaving eachother alone.

If someone chooses to live alone in the wilderness, perhaps she can claim to owe nothing to anyone. Any other choice implies obligations.

Taxation is wrong because it is taken by force.

Merely reciting your postulate in the face of reasoned objections is not valid argumentation.

I did not pick this country because I was born here.

You pick it everyday that you don't leave.

[Charles Anthony]

If someone chooses to live alone in the wilderness, perhaps she can claim to owe nothing to anyone. Any other choice implies obligations.

Why does any other choice imply obligations?

The only obligation I think is fair is NOT to force people to do something against their will. Live and let live.

Merely reciting your postulate in the face of reasoned objections is not valid argumentation.

The objection to my postulate was not reasoned. It made a connection which was invalid.

My postulate addresses force and coersion and taking away choice over controlling ones own property.

Myata's conclusion was a spin by making a false connection to something else that people may want which they did not earn.

I did not pick this country because I was born here.

You pick it everyday that you don't leave.

That is not choice. That is force.

You picked this country. Why don't you just move to another country if you don't like the taxes here.

No, I did not pick this country because I was born here.

You have the choice to leave at any time - being born here does not change anything.

That is no different from the choice offered by the protection racketeer.

The company I worked for did not have the compulsory benefit plan when I joined. I could have left but chose not to because the benefits of employment there still outweighed the costs.

I understand they changed the rules half-way through your employment. Did they promise to you a time-span whereby they can not change of terms of your employment?

You choose to continue to live in this country becuase the benefits outweigh the costs.

Myself, personally, that may or may not be the case. I am presenting an all encompassing philosophy that treats everybody equal regardless of their personal preferences and respects their freedom.

1) I could say that you are right, I accept the benefits and the taxes of staying here.

2) I could also say that I can not afford to move.

My choice of identifying taxation (under threat of imprisonment) as wrong does not discriminate. I prefer giving people choice to help their neighbors or to cooperate instead of forcing them to do so.

By making the choice to live in this country you are choosing to pay the taxes. You are trying to evade your personal responsibility by insisting you have no choice but to stay in the country.

No. I am placing more responsibility upon the people who extort taxes.

In terms of political theory, there's no reason why not.

What theory is that? Communism?

In terms of economic theory, because it is usually more efficient to have private goods provided thru the free market.

What theory is that?!? Communism?

When was the last time YOU could elect anything?

Me alone, never. Me with my fellow citizens, every few years.

You and your fellow citizens are not electing anything any more than you are electing the outcome of a lottery.

[Figleaf]

If someone chooses to live alone in the wilderness, perhaps she can claim to owe nothing to anyone. Any other choice implies obligations.

Why does any other choice imply obligations?

The only obligation I think is fair is NOT to force people to do something against their will. Live and let live.

If two people share the same slice of wilderness, each will have to refrain from actions that impinge on the other, like not fouling their water source or not burning down the forest.

I did not pick this country because I was born here.

You pick it everyday that you don't leave.

That is not choice. That is force.

What??? You could leave any time you wished. No-one would force you to stay.

In terms of political theory, there's no reason why not.

What theory is that? Communism?

Not 'a' Theory. Rather, theoretical analysis.

In terms of economic theory, because it is usually more efficient to have private goods provided thru the free market.

What theory is that?!? Communism?

???????

I said 'economic theory'. The method of economic analysis. You should read about it sometime; it can be very enlightening.

When was the last time YOU could elect anything?

Me alone, never. Me with my fellow citizens, every few years.

You and your fellow citizens are not electing anything any more than you are electing the outcome of a lottery.

Sure we are.

(Did you have an argument you were going to make?)

[Charles Anthony]

(Did you have an argument you were going to make?)

No. There is no argument with people who think they know everything about the "method of economic analysis" as you put it, after opening their high school home economics book.

Rather than argument, there is fun!

If two people share the same slice of wilderness, each will have to refrain from actions that impinge on the other, like not fouling their water source or not burning down the forest.

You are doing the same thing that Myata did above: coming up with a disconnected example and saying that it is connected. You then expect me to go for a spin.

Taxation deals with personal property: your money.

Your unrelated example of "two people sharing the same slice of wilderness" has nothing to do with who has power over one person's property. Their obligations vis a vis their own shared personal property is unrelated.

What??? You could leave any time you wished. No-one would force you to stay.

I answered that in the same post from which you just quoted.

What theory is that? Communism?

Not 'a' Theory. Rather, theoretical analysis.

What theory is that?!? Communism?

???????

I said 'economic theory'. The method of economic analysis.

Be explicit. What are the political and economic theories that justify people paying taxes for other people's shoes?

What are you saying? The government should pay for a national footware program or not?

The private sector can not provide "police protection, a justice system, roads, parks, you name it" or can it?

You should read about it sometime; it can be very enlightening.

Actually, you make it quite stultifying.

On the other hand, maybe you can recommend a high school for me to attend at which I can gain such higher learning?? I am going to be graduating from the 8th grade this year! I want to learn as much "economic theory" as you have!

You and your fellow citizens are not electing anything any more than you are electing the outcome of a lottery.

Sure we are.

I never trust electioneers either.

GeofFrey, come on. I do not know whether I should feel embarrassed for having closed my first post in that other thread with a snarky comment or whether I should laugh at you guys who gave that comment too much credit!

If you want to force people to pay for something they do not want, my proposal of raising the tax exemption on individuals still stands.

No one is forcing you to pay taxes, you have 100% the right to leave Canada. You being here is upon the condition of you paying taxes.

I see a point in taxation for many things... but where we will agree is that taxation should never have the motive of distribution of wealth.

Yes, all people are forced to pay taxes. Do you know what happens to them if they do not?? They can not exercise their "100% the right to leave Canada" because the state would send them to jail.

Furthermore, did you know that if RevenueCanada says you are guilty, you have to prove your innocence at your own expense? Did you know that they do not compensate you if they are wrong? What do you call that???

I see a point in taxation for many things... but where we will agree is that taxation should never have the motive of distribution of wealth.

I beg to differ. In fact, I am almost ready to argue the opposite: redistributing wealth is the ONLY justification for taxation.

I just might start accepting coercive statist thievery as being the definition of righteous virtue! It certainly seems easier that way.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

I beg to differ. In fact, I am almost ready to argue the opposite: redistributing wealth is the ONLY justification for taxation.

I just might start accepting coercive statist thievery as being the definition of righteous virtue!

Yes, in a "Robbin' Hood" [sic] sort of way.

Taxation is the lesser of two evils, for it is a bulwark against anarchy. To clarify, (as I know that one of your pet peeves is the 'mis'-definition of 'anarchy') I am talking about the 'chaotic anarchy' and not the utopian 'libertarian anarchy'.

If you are to argue that taxation is wrong, so too must you argue that laws are wrong.

[Charles Anthony]

Yes, in a "Robbin' Hood" [sic] sort of way.

Excellent! Did you come up with that yourself? I like it.

If you are to argue that taxation is wrong, so too must you argue that laws are wrong.

Indeed. Of which laws do you speak?

[Figleaf]

(Did you have an argument you were going to make?)

No. There is no argument with people who think they know everything about the "method of economic analysis" as you put it, after opening their high school home economics book.

Know 'everything'? I didn't suggest that. I can only guess that your histrionics here arise from the frustration you feel from having your ideas punctured.

Modern economics is carried out scientifically. Thinkers may differ, but a broadly agreed theoretical method has arisen and the field has accumulated a range of concepts that are generally considered proven. Rather than highschool textbooks, I'd refer you to some of the high quality encyclopedias of economics available in a reference library.

If two people share the same slice of wilderness, each will have to refrain from actions that impinge on the other, like not fouling their water source or not burning down the forest.

You are doing the same thing that Myata did above: coming up with a disconnected example and saying that it is connected. You then expect me to go for a spin.

I answered your question quite adequatley. As it's clear you have no response I'm not surprised you choose to cut and run.

Taxation deals with personal property: your money.

Who (or what) says whose money it is? On what principle is the ownership of the money asserted?

Your unrelated example of "two people sharing the same slice of wilderness" has nothing to do with who has power over one person's property.

You need to reread the thread to better follow the purpose of that comment.

Their obligations vis a vis their own shared personal property is unrelated.

??? What 'property'?

What??? You could leave any time you wished. No-one would force you to stay.

I answered that in the same post from which you just quoted.

I detected no such answer. You are free to leave Canada if you wish.

What are the political and economic theories that justify people paying taxes for other people's shoes?

Again it appears you're not reading carefully enough.

I said, 1. political theory does not prevent a state from providing shoes; and 2. that economic theory suggests it's more efficient for private goods to be provided thru the market.

If you'd care to deal with what I actually said, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

What are you saying? ...

The private sector can not provide "police protection, a justice system, roads, parks, you name it" or can it?

In answering this, it would be helpful to know if you understand the economic concept of 'public goods'?

But anyway, 'private police' is an inherently contradictory notion.

I am going to be graduating from the 8th grade this year! I want to learn as much "economic theory" as you have!

Great. You're clearly a bright guy. Keep your mind open and you'll surprise even yourself with the insights the science of economics can give you. Read what the true technicians of the field write, and avoid the political case-pleaders who claim to be economists.

[Charles Anthony]

What are you saying? ...

The private sector can not provide "police protection, a justice system, roads, parks, you name it" or can it?

In answering this, it would be helpful to know if you understand the economic concept of 'public goods'?

How would that be helpful??? Would it tell you what web search you must do and what to cut-and-paste for your response?

But anyway, 'private police' is an inherently contradictory notion.

Not if you know what a free market is. Have you ever heard of a security guard?

Even high school level economics teaches the free market.

[Rue]

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.

What I would like to know is, in your ideal world when someone completely opts out, assuming he will now no longer use roads, share water supplies, schools, electricity anything at all, and will be completely and absolutely self-sufficient and use nothing but his own stuff all the time-how would you manage that in this day and age? I can see if you plan to live on a self-sufficient island and cut yourself off of all services from anyone else, but other then that, I don;t think your point is practical and therefore a realistic one. I think in this day and age the size of the planet and technology forces us whether we like it or not to have to share certain resources and if you think the planet is an unlimited place that can basically provide billions of people doing what-ever they want without sharing good luck.

[Rue]

What are you saying? ...

The private sector can not provide "police protection, a justice system, roads, parks, you name it" or can it?

In answering this, it would be helpful to know if you understand the economic concept of 'public goods'?

How would that be helpful??? Would it tell you what web search you must do and what to cut-and-paste for your response?

But anyway, 'private police' is an inherently contradictory notion.

Not if you know what a free market is. Have you ever heard of a security guard?

Even high school level economics teaches the free market.

Well I am glad you have now reduced policing to security guard work. I am sure police officers across the world appreciate your analogy.

The one problem with you now wanting everything privatized is that in your dream world the market place would be determined by honest presumably market fearing humans who simply obey supply and demand and bid. There would be no cost cutting, no coruption, no conflicts of interest, no using of police forces or the justice system to influence people and gain power and the people building the roads, parks, you name it as you say, they would all be honest hard working people and do their best for us all and never cost cut to maximize profit and endanger lives.

Yah I love it. Private police forces. Nothing to worry about there. Sorry, your notion that you can privatize police is just not practical and in reality governments tender road work and lots of other public work to the private sector already so in that sense you are being redundant.

I know you want a private army, private medical care, private schools, private everything. Good luck.

[Figleaf]

What are you saying? ...

The private sector can not provide "police protection, a justice system, roads, parks, you name it" or can it?

In answering this, it would be helpful to know if you understand the economic concept of 'public goods'?

How would that be helpful???

It would tell me how much background material I need to cover for you before we can proceed.

But anyway, 'private police' is an inherently contradictory notion.

Not if you know what a free market is. Have you ever heard of a security guard?

A security guard is not a police ofiicer. By definition and by necessity a police officer is a public official.

Even high school level economics teaches the free market.

It teaches introductory basics about the market. I hope you follow my advice and study further beyond that.

BTW, here is an important part of our discussion you should give some thought ...

Taxation deals with personal property: your money.

Who (or what) says whose money it is? On what principle is the ownership of the money asserted?

[Charles Anthony]

What I would like to know is, in your ideal world when someone completely opts out, assuming he will now no longer use roads, share water supplies, schools, electricity anything at all, and will be completely and absolutely self-sufficient and use nothing but his own stuff all the time-how would you manage that in this day and age?

That is a mistaken assumption. Whoever owns the roads, water supplies, schools and electricity will charge him a user fee at each time of use or through offering a membership pass or by sending an invoice. We do that already with roads, water, schools and electricity. I live in the same world as you do.

Well I am glad you have now reduced policing to security guard work. I am sure police officers across the world appreciate your analogy.

Police forces contract their officers to be security guards at large busy entertainment events. I do not see that as demeaning. Do you?

The one problem with you now wanting everything privatized is that in your dream world the market place would be determined by honest presumably market fearing humans who simply obey supply and demand and bid. There would be no cost cutting, no coruption, no conflicts of interest, no using of police forces or the justice system to influence people and gain power and the people building the roads, parks, you name it as you say, they would all be honest hard working people and do their best for us all and never cost cut to maximize profit and endanger lives.

Are you describing my dream world or the real world, now?

It would tell me how much background material I need to cover for you before we can proceed.

Background material?? How about you just try to talk over my head. You are the one who studied economics, right?

I hope you follow my advice and study further beyond that.

Why?? To give you more things to look up on the internet before answering any of my economics questions??

Who (or what) says whose money it is? On what principle is the ownership of the money asserted?

The ownership of the money is asserted by the same principle which bars me from claiming you as my slave.

[bk59]

Charles,

I am curious to see what your answers would be to the following. Please let me know if I have misinterpreted any of your positions. For now I am going to ignore the "taxation is wrong because it is collected by force" issue.

Let's assume that everything in Canada would be provided by private companies, and no government services exist (since there are no taxes to pay for them).

1. Also assume that everyone is moral (i.e. people like those who ran Enron and stole shareholders' money do not exist). The cost of services in high population areas would be much lower than areas with small populations, based on the efficiency of providing services to so many people in a small area. Are we willing to say that in Canada, people in rural areas must pay substantially more for basic services like sewage treatement, electricity, natural gas, etc.? Currently governments spread out the costs of these services (although fluctuations in price still exist). Shouldn't Canadians everywhere be able to access the necessities of life for more or less the same cost?

2. Clearly not everyone is moral. Without any governments around to monitor corporate behaviour what is stopping people (like those who ran Enron) from gouging Canadian citizens every chance they get? I have a feeling you are going to say private police forces... so maybe just go to my next question...

3. With a private 'police' force, what stops the person (or people) who control that force from abusing their power? What prevents them from arbitrarily deciding that person X violated a law and then sending in their 'police' to imprison that person? What happens if the people who control two different 'police' forces decide that the other is violating the law? Could we not have mini-wars amongst these private forces?

4. One of the principles underlying our current society is that of judicial independence. Where would our judicial system come from if there were no government services? If private companies hired judges, how likely is it that those judges would then rule against their employers if the alternative was to be fired?

5. Where would laws come from? Without a government to pass laws, how would people know what conduct is wrong and what is acceptable?

[Figleaf]

It would tell me how much background material I need to cover for you before we can proceed.

Background material?? How about you just try to talk over my head. You are the one who studied economics, right?

I have studied economics, yes. I'd prefer not to talk in circles with you, but since you won't answer simple queries to establish the basis of a conversation I guess I'll have to assume the need to be fairly basic. In a market economy, people tender goods and services to the market because they expect to realize a return that exceeds their input costs (including their required return on time/effort and the opportunity cost of forgoing other activities/investments). So far so good? This works fine for most goods and services, but there are some things which though their value would exceed the cost, by their nature or situationally, a private provider cannot secure payment of the value from private exchanges in the free market. These are called 'public goods', and it is generally acknowledged that there is merit in having a government or collective entity provide the good so that everyone can gain the value that otherwise would be forgone for lack of being privately supplied.

I hope you follow my advice and study further beyond that.

Why?? To give you more things to look up on the internet before answering any of my economics questions??

Is there something bothering you, Charles? I've already told you that studying economics provides valuable insights, and that's why I suggested you study it. I don't understand why you're beating that internet line. The net is useful, of course, but FYI my comments here are generated from memory of the subject.

Who (or what) says whose money it is? On what principle is the ownership of the money asserted?

The ownership of the money is asserted by the same principle which bars me from claiming you as my slave.

You are barred from claiming me as your slave in two ways I can think of. A-the law prevents it, and B-I (along with any partisans I can muster) won't allow it.

Do you refer to A or B?

[Charles Anthony]

In a market economy, people tender goods and services to the market because they expect to realize a return that exceeds their input costs (including their required return on time/effort and the opportunity cost of forgoing other activities/investments). So far so good? This works fine for most goods and services, but there are some things which though their value would exceed the cost, by their nature or situationally, a private provider cannot secure payment of the value from private exchanges in the free market. These are called 'public goods', and it is generally acknowledged that there is merit in having a government or collective entity provide the good so that everyone can gain the value that otherwise would be forgone for lack of being privately supplied.

Now we are talking!

Charles,

I am curious to see what your answers would be to the following. Please let me know if I have misinterpreted any of your positions. For now I am going to ignore the "taxation is wrong because it is collected by force" issue.

Sure.

Let's assume that everything in Canada would be provided by private companies, and no government services exist (since there are no taxes to pay for them).

Let us discuss this in a more appropriate thread instead, shall we?

Follow me.

[Figleaf]

In a market economy, people tender goods and services to the market because they expect to realize a return that exceeds their input costs (including their required return on time/effort and the opportunity cost of forgoing other activities/investments). So far so good? This works fine for most goods and services, but there are some things which though their value would exceed the cost, by their nature or situationally, a private provider cannot secure payment of the value from private exchanges in the free market. These are called 'public goods', and it is generally acknowledged that there is merit in having a government or collective entity provide the good so that everyone can gain the value that otherwise would be forgone for lack of being privately supplied.

Now we are talking!

Is that all you have to say?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

The ownership of the money is asserted by the same principle which bars me from claiming you as my slave.

That would be law, then...

You are barred from claiming me as your slave in two ways I can think of. A-the law prevents it, and B-I (along with any partisans I can muster) won't allow it.

Do you refer to A or B?

As Figleaf points out, you must be referring to 'A', since you are talking about principle and not practicality. Because, really, 'A' can not exist without 'B'. 'Rights' are bestowed by those with the overwhelming force to make whatever happens, happen.

[Figleaf]

Good point, Thelonius. I think you're right that the two categories are assimilable with eachother. In a sense, the law is simply a redefinition of my aforementioned 'partisans' to include society at large.

I used to find anarchic theories like Charles espouses attractive, and believed that the only drawback was the difficulty of implementation. But further reflection on any of the many descriptions of anarchic societies in practice reveals they end up indistinguishable from one or another type of governmental system. Usually they fall into either collectivist (communist) utopias, OR highly permissive liberal democracies, but occasionally some may fit within the rubric of corporate or feudal oligarchies.

Anarchists, of course, insist otherwise, but just ask them what their plan would produce and it becomes obvious that anarchy is a theory that evaporates immediately in practice.

Unfortunately Charles seems to have gone missing on this topic, so we'll never know exactly which category his vision would fall into.

[Charles Anthony]

Uh.... take a closer look:

Follow me

.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....6281&st=80#

Easter eggs are not always the most apparent, I know!

[Figleaf]

Uh.... take a closer look:

Follow me

.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....6281&st=80#

Easter eggs are not always the most apparent, I know!

You think I'll chase you from thread to thread whenever your arguments begin to prove threadbare?

Sorry, not interested.