Taxes?

[Fletch]

You claim to know what I mean when I say government... then you go on to blah blah blah about constructs.

You don't know what I mean. You don't know me.

Hence the word "seem". Look it up.

Back to reality, man. What about national defense (is that specific enough for you)? Do you REALLY think this is neccessary? I do. Do you REALLY think people will freely donate to fund it? I don't.

Ask them. Put up a poll and see how many folks around here would donate to a national defense fund, if such existed. But again, it need not be funded by charitable donations. That's only one option.

As for the constructs, if you're not even going to attempt to understand what I'm getting at, this conversation isn't going to go very far.

 

[jsgolfman]

I vote for Anarchy. Wait, was that one of the poll questions?

 

[bigus_D]

Hence the word "seem". Look it up.

...

As for the constructs, if you're not even going to attempt to understand what I'm getting at, this conversation isn't going to go very far.

I understand that your intelligence far exceeds mine. I won't pretend to try to understand what you are saying regarding the constructs... It's probably just beyond me. That said, I am talking about the real world. I even provided a very simple example of a government service that requires funding. No need to go toward the constructs with which you are trying to complicate the conversation.

Please let me know how I "seemed" to be implying what you say I'm implying.

Also, the conversation won't go far if you continue to avoid the questions coming your way. WHAT OTHER OPTION BEYOND DONATION do you see if there is a zero tax rate???

 

[TiminMishawaka]

I have to write a check to the county for $14,000 this year for the privilege of taking just half a dozen of their crack houses they haven't policed and turn them into places a human can live in but won't pay their rent on to the mofo landlord. This $14,000 I have to pay is before I make a dime of profit on any of them.

I paid income tax on the money I earned to pay taxes when I bought the property to pay taxes for holding the property to pay sales tax on materials for fixing these properties to pay taxes for permit fees to fix these properties to get a little bit in rent which, if profitable, I have to pay taxes on.

Do you see now why some of us are a little f--king tired of taxes and have no respect for any leaching slugs who think that because I get off my a-- and work and you don't that somehow I owe you something? Kiss my freaking butt.

 

[Fletch]

I understand that your intelligence far exceeds mine. I won't pretend to try to understand what you are saying regarding the constructs... It's probably just beyond me.

Obsequiousness is never attractive.

That said, I am talking about the real world. I even provided a very simple example of a government service that requires funding. No need to go toward the constructs with which you are trying to complicate the conversation.

The service is what I'm calling a construct. At present it is provided by an institution which you call "government".

These constructs are things which are obviously necessary to maintain peace -- the expectation that a person who violates another's rights will be prevented or punished in some way, or that the victim will be restored as much as is possible. That such things are needed is a point on which we have no quarrel. It is the method of their provision which is a point of contention here.

Please let me know how I "seemed" to be implying what you say I'm implying.

"The government", "our national government", etc. are phrases which refer to an institution, not to the services which the institution proposes to provide. The services may or may not be arguably necessary to the continued functioning of civil society, but to the extent that they are, they are social constructs which do not necessarily require the existence of the institution to continue.

It may come as a surprise to you, but a lot of us on here carry guns on a daily basis. Many of us do this not only for our own safety, but for the safety of those around us. If a criminal comes into the McDonald's where we're eating and starts shooting up the place, many of us would respond by returning fire, even if the criminal is not specifically shooting at us. When we do this, we are performing an act of government -- of governing the behavior of those around us -- and we have no need of an institution to perform this act or service.

Also, the conversation won't go far if you continue to avoid the questions coming your way.

I assure you, I'm avoiding nothing on purpose.

WHAT OTHER OPTION BEYOND DONATION do you see if there is a zero tax rate???

Operation for profit, obviously, or volunteerism as in my example above on a larger scale. Or a combination of any/all of the three.

 

[bigus_D]

I would love to see the all volunteer, paid for by donation, national army. Even better, the for profit national army. Nearly laughable. (I realize that the military is currently all volunteer... but these men and women are still paid via tax dollars. it is the donation part, or the for profit part, that is impractical IMHO).

I believe I've made clear that I don't support, or appreciate, every service provided by the government. Additionally, I carry a gun daily to protect myself and my family, and to a lessor (to be completely honest in our litigeous society) the sheep around me. If more people were to step up to the plate, and we lived in a society a little closer to utopia, perhaps we could do without a standing police force.

Can you imagine a for profit police force? SCARY!!! I realize we are somewhat close to that, with ticketing quotas to increase department revenues... but entirely for profit. YIKES.

I simply don't think it is practical to opperate our national defense on a for profit or by donation structure. I'd love to see a zero tax rate, then I would have all the money I earn and could donate more where I see fit... but to suggest that our national defense could opperate under such a structure is a HUGE stretch. I agree that many services currently provided by the government COULD opperate this way, but not all.

 

[Fletch]

I would love to see the all volunteer, paid for by donation, national army. Even better, the for profit national army. Nearly laughable. (I realize that the military is currently all volunteer... but these men and women are still paid via tax dollars. it is the donation part, or the for profit part, that is impractical IMHO).

And it's fine for you to have that opinion. My opinion is that it could be worked out, as with all other services not presently provided at large by "the government". We never know how the free market will solve a problem until we allow it to do so.

If more people were to step up to the plate, and we lived in a society a little closer to utopia, perhaps we could do without a standing police force.

I don't believe utopia is necessary. Once we properly eliminate the things which our standing police forces do that are not directly in support of individual rights (and especially those things which are antagonistic to individual rights), the vast majority would no longer be necessary. Do away entirely with police forces such as the BATFE and DEA, and all local functions which mirror their mission, and you'd get rid of a giant load of unnecessary enforcement.

Can you imagine a for profit police force? SCARY!!!

Ever hear of private security? They're an example of a for-profit police force, and I don't find them half as scary as our tax-funded police forces.

I simply don't think it is practical to opperate our national defense on a for profit or by donation structure. I'd love to see a zero tax rate, then I would have all the money I earn and could donate more where I see fit... but to suggest that our national defense could opperate under such a structure is a HUGE stretch. I agree that many services currently provided by the government COULD opperate this way, but not all.

Then we'll just have to disagree on that point.

 

[jsgolfman]

Bigus, the armed forces and police are not volunteer. They all get paid. They are "for profit". The sticking point you have is who pays them. You believe that if the state (hate using the word government) doesn't force everyone to pay for them that somehow they either won't exist or will be so inept as to be worthless.
Are the members of the armed forces or police now forced to do those jobs? Ask them why they do it. You will more than likely hear responses along two lines thought. They do it because they love the work or some other altruistic motive or its a job and they do it for the money. So, with that in mind, do you really think it matters where the money comes from? My argument is you would have more motivated employees without the thumb of the state.

 

[bigus_D]

I understand that they are paid. The armed forces are volunteer in that they are not drafted (today), however.

I think, so long as they are getting paid, these people would continue doing their jobs in much the same way they do today. I don't mean to suggest that they all do it for the money, but I believe it is fair to say that the vast majority wouldn't volunteer to do it for free.

I don't think, if these organizations were relying on donations for funding, that the money would be there. Additionally, I don't see how the armed forces could possibly operate on a for-profit basis. Vigilantes operate for profit, but that is completely different. We could hire vigilantes, but then where does the money come from to pay for them? This is simply one of the services that can only be provided by a government, the state, whatever...

The police force could opperate on a for profit basis. The more people they catch breaking the law, the more fines they get to impose, the more money they make for the stock holders. This is a VERY scary proposion in my opinion. I guess the military could run the same way: the more countries they take over, they more riches they could steal, the more money for their stock holders. Not a good situation IMHO.

 

[Fletch]

Additionally, I don't see how the armed forces could possibly operate on a for-profit basis.

Sales of outmoded weapons and equipment be one obvious profit vector. With no laws against citizens owning military hardware, any time something got upgraded -- a new gun/vehicle/whatever design gets rolled out, for example -- the old stuff gets sold off at auction to folks with an interest.

The police force could opperate on a for profit basis. The more people they catch breaking the law, the more fines they get to impose, the more money they make for the stock holders. This is a VERY scary proposion in my opinion. I guess the military could run the same way: the more countries they take over, they more riches they could steal, the more money for their stock holders. Not a good situation IMHO.

You're still thinking in terms of institutionalized government. It is not the laws that they enforce which are the profit center for profit-based policing. It's the damages, losses, and injuries they prevent. There would be no place for law enforcement for the sake of law enforcement. Companies and wealthy individuals do not hire security for its own sake; they hire security to prevent a specific kind of loss. The same model can and would be applied to the community at large.

If you want insurance against (for example) theft or fire, your homeowner's insurance would either require you to pay a private security firm that covers your neighborhood, or (perhaps more likely) hire one of their own to provide that security for you, and reflect the cost of doing so in your insurance premiums. To the extent that certain types of laws have nothing to do with preventing a loss or damage to individuals or property, insurance companies would have no interest in enforcing them, and those laws would disappear.

Some might balk at the idea of insurance companies becoming a de facto State in this regard, but the difference is you can easily switch insurance companies. I get offers all the time from various companies, and I wouldn't even have to leave my couch to do so. Switching institutional governments is somewhat more problematic. And if an insurance company tried even a shadow of the crap that institutional governments try, they'd find their customer base defecting literally overnight. If my insurance company decided that, for purposes of my liability policy, I am not allowed by contract to own any guns, I'd switch 5 minutes later. Institutional governments are not similarly constrained by the immediacy of consumer revolt, no matter what the 2nd Amendment says.

 

[bigus_D]

It is not the laws that they enforce which are the profit center for profit-based policing. It's the damages, losses, and injuries they prevent.

I understand what you are saying about hiring protection where one wants protection. The problem with the scheme outlined above goes back to the point I've quoted above.

While this may work for corporations, individuals will not be protected. The "law" in your world would be owned by the wealthy. Those with the most money would have the "law" on their side. If I can't afford to hire my own police, I'm completely screwed. Or if my neighboor has more money and spends it on 'better' police, then he can come take over my land, rape my wife, kill my children. I could try to protect them myself, but when his police force comes down on me 20 men strong, what chance would I have... he'd have "the law" on his side.

Sure, maybe our current structure isn't perfect, and the weathly are more "equal" than the poor in the justice system. But I believe what you are talking about is libertarian utopia. I get it, but don't think it would ever work... I certainly don't think this country will ever get there.

 

[Fletch]

While this may work for corporations, individuals will not be protected. The "law" in your world would be owned by the wealthy. Those with the most money would have the "law" on their side. If I can't afford to hire my own police, I'm completely screwed. Or if my neighboor has more money and spends it on 'better' police, then he can come take over my land, rape my wife, kill my children. I could try to protect them myself, but when his police force comes down on me 20 men strong, what chance would I have... he'd have "the law" on his side.

This has nothing to do with what I posted, and I have the impression that you are being deliberately obtuse. The only people "unprotected" in the scenario I posted would be the homeless... and in their case nothing would have changed.

 

[bigus_D]

This has nothing to do with what I posted, and I have the impression that you are being deliberately obtuse. The only people "unprotected" in the scenario I posted would be the homeless... and in their case nothing would have changed.

No... I see and understand how you are approaching how "the police" should work as a for profit entity... providing "protection" on a for pay basis...

I presented the problem that exists in your construct. There is no longer "law" in your construct. Every man for himself. In the libertarian utopia you describe, this system works very well. In the real world where we live, it falls apart very quickly. That is why no country in the history of the world has ever been set up this way.

Further, how do you figure your scenario only leaves the homeless unprotected? Unless you are including those who use their last available dollar to get in their home, leaving nothing left to pay for protection... they would be homeless soon enough I guess.

 

[Fletch]

No... I see and understand how you are approaching how "the police" should work as a for profit entity... providing "protection" on a for pay basis...

I presented the problem that exists in your construct. There is no longer "law" in your construct.

Wrong. There is private law. Contract law. Law based on property rights and the individual rights which naturally flow out of them. If you actually "see and understand", you would get this. Law need not be argued by morons in a domed building. It can be worked out quite peacefully among fellow landowners and their proxies. It's been demonstrated to work in the "real world".

I've even recommended a book in another thread that thoroughly documents the implementation of informal law in Shasta County, California. This isn't science fiction. It's not a utopian vision. It's actual people already doing the kinds of things that I'm talking about -- to the point that they actually ignore formal laws that were drawn up to "solve" the "problem" that there "was no law", and instead do the same things they've always done under their informal set of rules. If you give it any thought whatsoever, I'm sure you can come up with other examples of how people cooperate in the absence of formal law -- even in the absence of communication. They're all around us.

For example:

Surly Curmudgeon: Spontaneous Order

There is a substantial and growing body of research that demonstrates and documents this sort of informal cooperation. The lie we suffer under is that it is somehow necessary to have institutionalized government -- a State -- to produce orderly, peaceful coexistence, or even a commonly-accepted set of rules by which individuals can govern their own conduct. Indeed, it's becoming clearer every day that the State's existence is detrimental to these goals.

I understand that some are married to the State and in love with taxation and the redistribution of wealth. Frankly, there's no helping them. I rather hoped that the folks on INGO were at least open to alternatives.

 

[bigus_D]

Perhaps you could cite the book here. I'd be interested in reading it.

I consider myself to have libertarian views. However, when taken to the ultimate extreme, everything I've read ends up sounding like libertarian utopia to me. I just don't see it working out so well on the large scale.

I certainly believe things could work differently, but simply saying we shouldn't have to pay any taxes doesn't do it. That is why I asked you how you thought it would work and why I presented the holes I saw in what you were saying (or what I thought you were saying). That doesn't mean I'm not open to it.

 

[Fletch]

I apologize; I don't mean to be so harsh. I argue the point forcefully because I truly believe that it is absolutely imperative to identify taxation as theft and to maintain that identification. The question of what is to be done about the situation may have different answers for different people, ranging from "accept the theft" to "line Congress up against the wall and open fire", but maintaining knowledge of the truth is essential. Knowing is half the battle; deciding what to do about what you know is the other half.

The book is Robert Ellickson's Order Without Law, and was linked in the blog post I linked above. It is also discussed in some depth at Reason in the following articles:

The Experimental Economist - Reason Magazine

Welcome to the New -- and Private -- Neighborhood - Reason Magazine

EDIT: Oops, this second one addresses the larger point and mentions Ellickson himself, but not the book specifically. /EDIT

Reason has been documenting examples of informal law worldwide for as long as I've been reading the magazine (about 10 years), and based on some archival articles I've read probably far longer than that.

I would also recommend Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed for an in-depth discussion of the cost-distribution-via-insurance idea I mentioned above. Unfortunately, without a basic grounding in economics it's probably a little rough to grasp, so if you don't have that I'd recommend starting with Gene Callahan's Economics for Real People.

 

[jsgolfman]

Another discussion site you might look into that has some pretty astute members is Freesteader Libertarian Discussion Forum or you could even venture to the Daily Anarchist - Building a voluntary society…without permission if you're feeling particularly interested. Also, I am sure you've heard of Ludwig von Mises Institute - Homepage that's a great place to find a lot of what we are talking about. Of course, no discourse on this subject would be complete (IMHO) unless I put in a plug for Spooner.

 

[Lex Concord]

While I agree in principle that taxes are theft, I don't believe we'll change that in our lifetimes. It's a small minority who believes that a poor person and a rich person should pay the same amount for a government function.

Even if all taxes are theft, I don't get a chance to elect someone who believes the same. So, I'll throw my weight behind a theif who will take less, rather than take principled action that makes it likely I'll get a theif who takes more.

I often ponder how much HOPE for tax CHANGE there was in 1765...

 

[Lex Concord]

Of course, no discourse on this subject would be complete (IMHO) unless I put in a plug for Spooner.

What, no link?!?

LysanderSpooner.org | Lysander Spooner: Lawyer, abolitionist, entrepreneur, and legal theorist

 

[jsgolfman]

Dang, thought I did? Thanks for the assist. Have you had a chance to read his Natural Law? Well, that's the short title, the actual title is quite longer.