I've seen you say that before, which is surprising from someone as rational as you.
Firstly, thanks. I think. ;)
Let's look at "taxation is theft."
It...it is. If I sell my car/gun/house/whatever to Bob, why is the government entitled to any of that? That's between me and Bob.
If I go work for Bob, and he pays me...why is the government entitled to any of that money Bob pays me? Also, why is the government entitled to any of Bob's money, when he pays me? Why does the government get to essentially pimp me out? I didn't realize I was under contract. Where the fuck did that relationship come from? The government doesn't get a cut of my time/labor, on either end. It's still between me and Bob.
If I go to Jim's store and buy something, with the money I earned from working for or selling something to Bob...why is the government entitled to any of that? That's between me, and Bob, and Jim.
Taxation in general is, at best, a necessary evil. But at the very most choose one type. We're currently being at the very least quadruple dipped.
I go to work. The government takes money from both my employer and me. I go buy something with the money that the government lets me keep - let's say something big like a car or house, because that proves the point more - and the government again takes a cut, from both me and the seller. I then decide to sell that item at some point...the government takes a cut.
How is this not theft?
What did the government do for me?
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
Again, at most, choose one.
No taxation without representation, and I don't believe we currently have representation. If we did, then we could talk. I still think it should be voluntary, but we'd at least be doing better.
The government is hilariously corrupt and inefficient. Adding in any coercive element just makes everything worse and more corrupt and inefficient.
Here's a question. If meritocracy is good on the individual level, why isn't it good on the governmental level? Should people have to earn their way? If so, is the government exempt? If so, why?
Because all I'm seeing is a bunch of cronyism. Not sure what it's like where you are, but to use the 'muh roads' argument...my roads are fucking shit. And if I ever see anyone working on them, it's two women holding stop signs, five men standing around, and one man pretending to work. While getting paid probably something like four times the actual market rate to produce good results.
I'm not saying libertarians (small "l" for the record) are right about everything; they're not. But they're right to hate and distrust the government, in its current form. It's a fucking joke, and I'll never apologize for that.
The fact that governments (made up of a very small subset of the people) can just take from the rest of the people, overseen by primarily their own people in government, is a recipe for disaster.
Not to get all Ayn Randy, but there is some truth to the idea that something given/taken has no value. If you give these fuckers permission to just take your money, they're under no obligation or expectation to use it wisely. And they generally won't use it wisely.
Let's say we allow some level of local tax for the Greater Good (the Greater Good!). But you've still got the State and Feds butting in, to take even more. It's all a racket. I'm being extorted by the City, State, and Federal level, and the City is being extorted by the State, which is being extorted by the Feds.
I believe in voluntarism. I believe in state's rights.
If some level of tax should be mandatory, it should be just that; one level. No more. I don't want the State beholden to the Feds, I don't want Cities beholden to the State.
Also, while we're on that topic, I want the idea of the Electoral College passed down to the state and local level. I don't want some group having power over me from across the state or country, just because there are more of them. How is that just or representational?
You're describing Europe.
I'm describing...damn near everywhere. Probably Europe more than many but, no, this is sadly universal.
To reiterate:
I've seen you say that before, which is surprising from someone as rational as you.
Again, I do legitimately appreciate it.
Let's assume I am rational. Perhaps I have a point in my distrust for government and the current system, right?
Here's a question: Is there any - any - evidence that governments do a better job that groups of people or corporations?
I haven't seen any. Quote the opposite.
I don't like corporations, even, for the record. But they are largely more successful and effective than the government. They're also propped up by the government, so if you minimized that, the corporations would also have more competition.
...the government is nothing but a band of robbers...
Yes.
...taxes are also necessary, if not at the current level, at least at some level, not?
Are they?
Again, I know it's a strawman, but "mut roads" is one of the big arguments. Gubmint fucking sucks when it comes to roads. I go out there and fill the potholes, dig the ditches, on my street. Because the government doesn't. I don't get paid. I do it for free, as the saying goes.
I see no argument for coercive, antimeritocratic taxes. They seem to make everything worse, for everyone.
Can't be a surprise to you, given my invitation to <censored>.
<list of various taxes>. Taxation in general is, at best, a necessary evil. But at the very most choose one type. We're currently being at the very least quadruple dipped.
Of course, that would mean that the one type would have to be extraordinarily high, and that the burden would fall far more on certain groups, and also discourage a given economic activity far more than others.
Now I know you will say: we should also spend less, so less need for taxes. Even assuming that people are going to give up their Social Security and Medicare and the war machine, and the variety of other very popular programs, it is not clear to me why hitting one 'type' would be superior than having light taxes everywhere. It might be annoying and exasperating, like you are not able to do anything without incurring a loss, but for the reasons specified in paragraph 1, this is probably better. (I can't believe I'm saying that about the current system...)
How is this not theft?
Well, to be technical, it would be robbery - as it's theft with the threat of violence. But I also think that it's a somewhat banal, as it's not even accompanied by a point. "Taxation is necessary, but since it's theft, it should be minimized as much as possible." That's an argument. Just "it's theft"? OK, and then? None of us don't like taxes, and I like it even less considering the terrible purposes on which it is spent, but that's hardly the same as there should be none.
No taxation without representation, and I don't believe we currently have representation.
This part is absolutely true.
If we did, then we could talk. I still think it should be voluntary, but we'd at least be doing better.
Voluntary? And how would you solve the 'free rider' problem?
Here's a question. If meritocracy is good on the individual level, why isn't it good on the governmental level? Should people have to earn their way? If so, is the government exempt? If so, why?
It's great, but not really practical. "Pay taxes if you want" simply isn't going to work. If you can not pay taxes and still enjoy all the benefits of what taxes pay for, then no one will pay taxes. If Microsoft could have the work of all great software engineers without paying them, it would do that! But they can exclude Microsoft from using their work, while public works by their very nature cannot.
Not sure what it's like where you are, but to use the 'muh roads' argument...my roads are fucking shit.
Well, they're great. Problem is, everything else here is worse than sh*t. So whenever I complain about taxes to other people here, they use the roads argument. They never say: it's great that we pay taxes so we can bomb third world countries every day of they year. Or let in 'refugees'. Or any of the other evil things that are done with my taxes.
I'm not saying libertarians (small "l" for the record) are right about everything; they're not. But they're right to hate and distrust the government, in its current form. It's a fucking joke, and I'll never apologize for that.
You shouldn't. But that's the easiest possible argument to make. I'm not sure anyone is happy about the performance of government.
Not to get all Ayn Randy, but there is some truth to the idea that something given/taken has no value. If you give these fuckers permission to just take your money, they're under no obligation or expectation to use it wisely. And they generally won't use it wisely.
There's great truth to that. It's very easy to spend other people's money. Waste and abuse is legendary where there is no accountability. And while I agree that we are in such a mess that anything would seem better, do we have a superior alternative?
I'm being extorted by the City, State, and Federal level
Well, I'm extorted by just the 'federal' level (at least equivalent). It's not exactly better. Then they distribute it to these various executing agencies. Meaning, there is even less accountability because the money is coming from above.
Let's assume I am rational. Perhaps I have a point in my distrust for government and the current system, right?
You'd be completely insane if you did not trust the current system.
Here's a question: Is there any - any - evidence that governments do a better job that groups of people or corporations?
Insofar as tasks of governments can be done by corporations, they are. E.g. mail delivery, which is completely privatized in Europe. But I don't see police, roads, etc. and other public goods done by people and corps. Yes, I can imagine some scheme where private security firms act as some sort of police, but it's a bit fanciful, don't you think?
Gubmint fucking sucks when it comes to roads. I go out there and fill the potholes, dig the ditches, on my street. Because the government doesn't. I don't get paid. I do it for free, as the saying goes.
I'm pretty sure I'd get arrested if I filled potholes. Fortunately there aren't that many.
Firstly, thanks. I think. ;)
Let's look at "taxation is theft."
It...it is. If I sell my car/gun/house/whatever to Bob, why is the government entitled to any of that? That's between me and Bob.
If I go work for Bob, and he pays me...why is the government entitled to any of that money Bob pays me? Also, why is the government entitled to any of Bob's money, when he pays me? Why does the government get to essentially pimp me out? I didn't realize I was under contract. Where the fuck did that relationship come from? The government doesn't get a cut of my time/labor, on either end. It's still between me and Bob.
If I go to Jim's store and buy something, with the money I earned from working for or selling something to Bob...why is the government entitled to any of that? That's between me, and Bob, and Jim.
Taxation in general is, at best, a necessary evil. But at the very most choose one type. We're currently being at the very least quadruple dipped.
I go to work. The government takes money from both my employer and me. I go buy something with the money that the government lets me keep - let's say something big like a car or house, because that proves the point more - and the government again takes a cut, from both me and the seller. I then decide to sell that item at some point...the government takes a cut.
How is this not theft?
What did the government do for me?
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
Again, at most, choose one.
No taxation without representation, and I don't believe we currently have representation. If we did, then we could talk. I still think it should be voluntary, but we'd at least be doing better.
The government is hilariously corrupt and inefficient. Adding in any coercive element just makes everything worse and more corrupt and inefficient.
Here's a question. If meritocracy is good on the individual level, why isn't it good on the governmental level? Should people have to earn their way? If so, is the government exempt? If so, why?
Because all I'm seeing is a bunch of cronyism. Not sure what it's like where you are, but to use the 'muh roads' argument...my roads are fucking shit. And if I ever see anyone working on them, it's two women holding stop signs, five men standing around, and one man pretending to work. While getting paid probably something like four times the actual market rate to produce good results.
I'm not saying libertarians (small "l" for the record) are right about everything; they're not. But they're right to hate and distrust the government, in its current form. It's a fucking joke, and I'll never apologize for that.
The fact that governments (made up of a very small subset of the people) can just take from the rest of the people, overseen by primarily their own people in government, is a recipe for disaster.
Not to get all Ayn Randy, but there is some truth to the idea that something given/taken has no value. If you give these fuckers permission to just take your money, they're under no obligation or expectation to use it wisely. And they generally won't use it wisely.
Let's say we allow some level of local tax for the Greater Good (the Greater Good!). But you've still got the State and Feds butting in, to take even more. It's all a racket. I'm being extorted by the City, State, and Federal level, and the City is being extorted by the State, which is being extorted by the Feds.
I believe in voluntarism. I believe in state's rights.
If some level of tax should be mandatory, it should be just that; one level. No more. I don't want the State beholden to the Feds, I don't want Cities beholden to the State.
Also, while we're on that topic, I want the idea of the Electoral College passed down to the state and local level. I don't want some group having power over me from across the state or country, just because there are more of them. How is that just or representational?
I'm describing...damn near everywhere. Probably Europe more than many but, no, this is sadly universal.
To reiterate:
Again, I do legitimately appreciate it.
Let's assume I am rational. Perhaps I have a point in my distrust for government and the current system, right?
Here's a question: Is there any - any - evidence that governments do a better job that groups of people or corporations?
I haven't seen any. Quote the opposite.
I don't like corporations, even, for the record. But they are largely more successful and effective than the government. They're also propped up by the government, so if you minimized that, the corporations would also have more competition.
Yes.
Are they?
Again, I know it's a strawman, but "mut roads" is one of the big arguments. Gubmint fucking sucks when it comes to roads. I go out there and fill the potholes, dig the ditches, on my street. Because the government doesn't. I don't get paid. I do it for free, as the saying goes.
I see no argument for coercive, antimeritocratic taxes. They seem to make everything worse, for everyone.
I do not apologize for this view.
Can't be a surprise to you, given my invitation to <censored>.
Of course, that would mean that the one type would have to be extraordinarily high, and that the burden would fall far more on certain groups, and also discourage a given economic activity far more than others.
Now I know you will say: we should also spend less, so less need for taxes. Even assuming that people are going to give up their Social Security and Medicare and the war machine, and the variety of other very popular programs, it is not clear to me why hitting one 'type' would be superior than having light taxes everywhere. It might be annoying and exasperating, like you are not able to do anything without incurring a loss, but for the reasons specified in paragraph 1, this is probably better. (I can't believe I'm saying that about the current system...)
Well, to be technical, it would be robbery - as it's theft with the threat of violence. But I also think that it's a somewhat banal, as it's not even accompanied by a point. "Taxation is necessary, but since it's theft, it should be minimized as much as possible." That's an argument. Just "it's theft"? OK, and then? None of us don't like taxes, and I like it even less considering the terrible purposes on which it is spent, but that's hardly the same as there should be none.
This part is absolutely true.
Voluntary? And how would you solve the 'free rider' problem?
It's great, but not really practical. "Pay taxes if you want" simply isn't going to work. If you can not pay taxes and still enjoy all the benefits of what taxes pay for, then no one will pay taxes. If Microsoft could have the work of all great software engineers without paying them, it would do that! But they can exclude Microsoft from using their work, while public works by their very nature cannot.
Well, they're great. Problem is, everything else here is worse than sh*t. So whenever I complain about taxes to other people here, they use the roads argument. They never say: it's great that we pay taxes so we can bomb third world countries every day of they year. Or let in 'refugees'. Or any of the other evil things that are done with my taxes.
You shouldn't. But that's the easiest possible argument to make. I'm not sure anyone is happy about the performance of government.
There's great truth to that. It's very easy to spend other people's money. Waste and abuse is legendary where there is no accountability. And while I agree that we are in such a mess that anything would seem better, do we have a superior alternative?
Well, I'm extorted by just the 'federal' level (at least equivalent). It's not exactly better. Then they distribute it to these various executing agencies. Meaning, there is even less accountability because the money is coming from above.
You'd be completely insane if you did not trust the current system.
Insofar as tasks of governments can be done by corporations, they are. E.g. mail delivery, which is completely privatized in Europe. But I don't see police, roads, etc. and other public goods done by people and corps. Yes, I can imagine some scheme where private security firms act as some sort of police, but it's a bit fanciful, don't you think?
I'm pretty sure I'd get arrested if I filled potholes. Fortunately there aren't that many.