ITT we talk about "perfect" societies

[zarus tathra]

One thing I find inspiring is the idea of decentralized networks of small production shops. This site is  great site on how this will work. They show all kinds of examples of small groups of skilled craftsmen outproducing massive, hyperspecialied machines, and of big business failing to compete with small business and having to rely on government. You're seeing this happen in China now, where the police are "cleaning up" street-side tailors because they compete with large shops, even though these tailors are REALLY efficient and skilled and will have a perfect replica of a piece of designer clothing in like 15 minutes.

Japanese companies used this model of lean manufacturing to own North America's car industry; there's no reason to think this model wouldn't flourish almost everywhere else.

[SilentFutility]

I pay roughly 25% tax here in the US, have no choice where the money goes, and can go to jail if I refuse to pay.

Your vote is your way of choosing what your tax money gets spent on. No, you can't actually specify precisely what your tax money is spent on, but you contribute to the wealth of the overall group, and this is used to benefit the collective group by your elected leaders.

We do pay more tax in Western Europe inc. the Netherlands, but we can also vote for whoever we want without a two-party system, and income distribution is far more fair here, and nobody is denied access to food, water and healthcare. We also have higher education systems that are either free or heavily subsidised, allowing even the poorest people in the country a means of being highly successful if they work hard enough and are talented enough.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having to contribute to the running of a society which gives you pretty much everything you've got. All things considered, the Netherlands really is a great place to live compared to the majority of the rest of the world.

[Jack89]

Tax is 100% voluntary. If you don't want to pay, just leave. Settle in Somalia, or another wonderful society without taxes.

No, it's coercive.  Think about it.  

Tax is the same as rent. The simplest analogy is that you like in an apartment building where the people who live there vote for privileges they want, such as people washing the floor, a janitor to take care of repairs, etc. And what the collective decides you got to be part of paying for even if you don't want to pay for it- as long as you want to live there. If you don't pay you are getting a free ride and exploiting everybody else by getting the same privileges without paying for them.

False analogy.  When you rent an apartment, at least when I do, you agree to the terms of the lease before anything happens, and sign a lease to seal the deal.  That's voluntary.  

Equally everyone who lives in a country with infrastructure owes the state simply for having a roof over their head. Nothing would have been possible without a state. You would not have been able to earn money or live in any kind of proper conditions (by modern standards).

You sound very patriotic and trusting of your government.  I think you also give your government too much credit and people too little.  

Tl:dr: You are free to pick your landlord/country, but if you want any kind of proper living conditions you got to pay. If you refuse to pay you are stealing benefits, hence why you can face jail time.

Whatever the positive aspects of taxation may be, and I'm sure you can find many, it doesn't change the fact that taking something from a person who rightfully earned it and giving it to someone else is stealing.  It's immoral and unjust.  A case of the ends justifying the means.

It's also a classic Nozick vs. Rawls debate that people can't seem to agree on.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I pay roughly 25% tax here in the US, have no choice where the money goes, and can go to jail if I refuse to pay.

Your vote is your way of choosing what your tax money gets spent on. No, you can't actually specify precisely what your tax money is spent on, but you contribute to the wealth of the overall group, and this is used to benefit the collective group by your elected leaders.

We do pay more tax in Western Europe inc. the Netherlands, but we can also vote for whoever we want without a two-party system, and income distribution is far more fair here, and nobody is denied access to food, water and healthcare. We also have higher education systems that are either free or heavily subsidised, allowing even the poorest people in the country a means of being highly successful if they work hard enough and are talented enough.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having to contribute to the running of a society which gives you pretty much everything you've got. All things considered, the Netherlands really is a great place to live compared to the majority of the rest of the world.

You can also stand for election. If people think your ideas on taxation and the distribution of wealth are worth something, then they'll vote for you (again, variations on perfection of the system in place).

But I agree with your post 100%.

[La Dolce Vita]

Tax is 100% voluntary. If you don't want to pay, just leave. Settle in Somalia, or another wonderful society without taxes.

No, it's coercive.  Think about it.

In no way, manner or form could it be considered coercive. I'll give you that if you steal from society the criminal that won't pay taxes will be coerced to jail/pay, but that's just like any other criminal.

Tax is the same as rent. The simplest analogy is that you like in an apartment building where the people who live there vote for privileges they want, such as people washing the floor, a janitor to take care of repairs, etc. And what the collective decides you got to be part of paying for even if you don't want to pay for it- as long as you want to live there. If you don't pay you are getting a free ride and exploiting everybody else by getting the same privileges without paying for them.

False analogy.  When you rent an apartment, at least when I do, you agree to the terms of the lease before anything happens, and sign a lease to seal the deal.  That's voluntary. [/quote]

It's a very accurate analogy, your attempt to dismiss it is wrong and laughable. Note that you do not need to pay taxes before you start working. It's voluntary to work, just like it's voluntary to rent - but without an income, or without a roof over your head you may be fucked. There is no difference here. Just like you may hunt for an appartment to rent, you can hunt for a country to live in.

The main complication will be language, which may cause restriction, but my analogy is as close as it can get. When you decide to live in a country you agree to follow their laws, it's that simple. If you don't like their laws leave. Staying in your country is voluntary. It may be expensive to move, but it may also be expensive to move from your parents to an appartment.

Equally everyone who lives in a country with infrastructure owes the state simply for having a roof over their head. Nothing would have been possible without a state. You would not have been able to earn money or live in any kind of proper conditions (by modern standards).

You sound very patriotic and trusting of your government.  I think you also give your government too much credit and people too little.  

Patriotism is nonsense, and I get that you, presumably an American, would have issues with trusting government as yours has been shown to suck. But aside from some complaints I think my government is doing a fine job, and with proper supervision from the people I expect them to continue to do so. The people is the government, crediting the government is crediting the people. The agreement to work together, create laws and a socialistic welfare state (in our case) is the reason why we have essentially anything good in our lives - because without it there's chaos, very little can be done and the strong exploit the weak - like in your (presumed) country I'm afraid.

Tl:dr: You are free to pick your landlord/country, but if you want any kind of proper living conditions you got to pay. If you refuse to pay you are stealing benefits, hence why you can face jail time.

Whatever the positive aspects of taxation may be, and I'm sure you can find many, it doesn't change the fact that taking something from a person who rightfully earned it and giving it to someone else is stealing. It's immoral and unjust.  A case of the ends justifying the means.

This is so off the mark it's ridiculous. No, the opposite is stealing, sir (or ma'am). The government has a claim on your money. You owe them for everything they have done for you. You owe them for even having a job. For living in a relatively safe town. For creating an envirement where stores, businesses, roads, banks, etc. can exist. You are living on their grounds and you must pay for your privileges and stay. It's payment for privileges used or available to you. Not paying taxes is refusing to give the government what they rightfully has a right to, i.e. stealing. Taking money the government has earned as your employee can not be considered stealing by any stretch of logic.

[Jack89]

This is so off the mark it's ridiculous. No, the opposite is stealing, sir (or ma'am). The government has a claim on your money. You owe them for everything they have done for you. You owe them for even having a job. For living in a relatively safe town. For creating an envirement where stores, businesses, roads, banks, etc. can exist. You are living on their grounds and you must pay for your privileges and stay. It's payment for privileges used or available to you. Not paying taxes is refusing to give the government what they rightfully has a right to, i.e. stealing. Taking money the government has earned as your employee can not be considered stealing by any stretch of logic.

OK, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion.  Have a nice day.

[Plu]

I'm pretty sure you never use roads, the police, hospitals, public education, or any of the other hundreds of things your government provides? Unless you wish to argue that using them without paying for them isn't considered stealing?

[La Dolce Vita]

This is so off the mark it's ridiculous. No, the opposite is stealing, sir (or ma'am). The government has a claim on your money. You owe them for everything they have done for you. You owe them for even having a job. For living in a relatively safe town. For creating an envirement where stores, businesses, roads, banks, etc. can exist. You are living on their grounds and you must pay for your privileges and stay. It's payment for privileges used or available to you. Not paying taxes is refusing to give the government what they rightfully has a right to, i.e. stealing. Taking money the government has earned as your employee can not be considered stealing by any stretch of logic.

OK, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion.  Have a nice day.

I'd like to hear you argue your case. Can you dismiss my arguments or provide counter arguments that would back your case?

[Jack89]

This is so off the mark it's ridiculous. No, the opposite is stealing, sir (or ma'am). The government has a claim on your money. You owe them for everything they have done for you. You owe them for even having a job. For living in a relatively safe town. For creating an envirement where stores, businesses, roads, banks, etc. can exist. You are living on their grounds and you must pay for your privileges and stay. It's payment for privileges used or available to you. Not paying taxes is refusing to give the government what they rightfully has a right to, i.e. stealing. Taking money the government has earned as your employee can not be considered stealing by any stretch of logic.

OK, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion.  Have a nice day.

I'd like to hear you argue your case. Can you dismiss my arguments or provide counter arguments that would back your case?

You don't seem willing to listen to opposing arguments, so I really don't want to get into it.  If you are interested, look at John Rawls' books, "A Theory of Justice." I disagree with his theory, but appreciate his genius.  Opposing his argument is Robert Nozick who wrote "Anarchy, State and Utopia." Also brilliant.  Simply put, Rawls advocates utility and redistribution of wealth, and Nozick thinks individual rights are more important.  I was introduced to both of them in a university political philosophy class.  I'm biased toward Nozick, because I think rights of the individual are most important.

They're both difficult to read if you not into philosophy, but there are a ton of Rawls vs. Nozick summaries on the web.  If you're interested.

[Jmpty]

The tax choice argument has very little to do with Rawls or Nozick. In fact, it's a reductio ad absurdum argument. It's not about some philosophical dilemna, it's a very practical matter of requiring people to pay for the upkeep and protection of the country in which they live, and to provide a safety net for anyone who may need it. We all benefit from the taxes we pay.

[La Dolce Vita]

I'd like to hear you argue your case. Can you dismiss my arguments or provide counter arguments that would back your case?

You don't seem willing to listen to opposing arguments, so I really don't want to get into it.  

I seem unwilling to listen to opposing arguments? Why? I've heard you out, haven't I? What I am unwilling about is to accept your unsopported radical-libertarian dogma that does not stand scrutiny on face value. Or rather, you have yet to convince me of your assertions as I don't currently find them logically sound. I also find them to contradict reality.

You made your case, I listened and offered counter arguments. How can you then say I'm unwilling to listen? Unwilling to believe non-supported dogma without solid arguments, evidence and logic, yes. But I'm hearing you out. You are the one seemingly afraid to listen to others as it might damage your world view.

Don't send me to some book(s) like the christians do. Support your arguments. Maybe they aren't as hollow and wrong as I so far have found them to be. so far. If you can support your case on evidence and logic I find solid I will obviously change my opinion on this.

[zarus tathra]

I'd like to hear you argue your case. Can you dismiss my arguments or provide counter arguments that would back your case?

You don't seem willing to listen to opposing arguments, so I really don't want to get into it.  

I seem unwilling to listen to opposing arguments? Why? I've heard you out, haven't I? What I am unwilling about is to accept your unsopported radical-libertarian dogma that does not stand scrutiny on face value. Or rather, you have yet to convince me of your assertions as I don't currently find them logically sound. I also find them to contradict reality.

You made your case, I listened and offered counter arguments. How can you then say I'm unwilling to listen? Unwilling to believe non-supported dogma without solid arguments, evidence and logic, yes. But I'm hearing you out. You are the one seemingly afraid to listen to others as it might damage your world view.

Don't send me to some book(s) like the christians do. Support your arguments. Maybe they aren't as hollow and wrong as I so far have found them to be. so far. If you can support your case on evidence and logic I find solid I will obviously change my opinion on this.

Not him, but the link I posed at the top of this page really supports a libertarian system. They talk about how the Japanese auto industry, which relies on networks of small, independently owned shops and small inventories, defeated the American auto industry, which relies on large bureaucracies and massive machinery churning out low-quality cars that can't compete. If the anarcho-capitalist model can work in the car industry, which has the rare distinction of both being mass-production and incredibly complex, then there's no reason to think it won't work in a lot of other industries.

An example he gives is of Emilia-Romagna, which is a province of Italy that's like the 3rd richest in the country. If every region of the world was like it, then humanity would be very wealthy indeed.

[La Dolce Vita]

First of all the system you've been argueing for is fascism+communism, it has nothing to do with libertarianism. I've certainly never heard of a libertarian "system" with a decided and fixed upper class of scientists running a dictatorship ... Kinda contradictory. :/

I also don't see how efficiency of smaller companies would support libertarianism. If this is a successful model in the free market it could, like you say,  (probably) flourish anywhere else, and this model could be useful under or within any system (save one putting them down).

[zarus tathra]

First of all the system you've been argueing for is fascism+communism, it has nothing to do with libertarianism. I've certainly never heard of a libertarian "system" with a decided and fixed upper class of scientists running a dictatorship ... Kinda contradictory. :/

They can coexist, like bacteria flourishing within the human body. It's your Western hubris that says that one language and one habit must dominate absolutely. There will be the cathedral, and there will be the bazaar. If the cathedral becomes useless and corrupt, it will be allowed to decay until it becomes useful again.

A free countryside in which all may roam and farm to their heart's content is a better check on tyranny than democracy can ever be. Likewise, if the city elders are efficient and visionary enough, people will voluntarily migrate to the cities to support the cause.

I also don't see how efficiency of smaller companies would support libertarianism. If this is a successful model in the free market it could, like you say, (probably) flourish anywhere else, and this model could be useful under or within any system (save one putting them down).

It's because they support the idea that decentralization is feasible and even superior. If you think too much in terms of baroque, overly particular ideologies and not in terms of more fundamental concepts, you will always get uselessly stuck on labels.

[Plu]

A free countryside in which all may roam and farm to their heart's content is a better check on tyranny than democracy can ever be.

I'm pretty sure that most of the free countrysides where people may roam and farm to their hearts contents are in some of the worst nations in the world for a reason, considering you decided to firstly make it a "law of the jungle" type of place, and then decide to send the murderers and serious criminals there. I'm not sure what you think is going to happen, but "peaceful farming" is only going to be a small percentage of it.