trc@hou5a.UUCP (03/13/84)
Reposted - sorry if you see a repeat ------------------------------------- Phil Polli has taken up the cause "taxation is moral" - IE it is not theft. I agree that taxation is not intrinsically theft. People can form a political system and agree to voluntarily pay a tax to support the role they have agreed the "state" should take. Taxes become theft when the system forces people to pay them. Of course, maybe one should *define* taxes as involuntary, in which case, I would call them intrinsically theft. To clarify discussion, I suggest we use "voltax" to indicate any "taxation" that is properly voluntary, "theftax" for non-voluntary taxes, and "taxation" for the general class. Even if a political system declares its taxes to be voluntary in principle, if the system uses force to obtain taxes, the tax is a theftax. (Theft is the use of force to take someone else's property - IE without their voluntary consent. BTW, force and violence are not the same thing, and I really do mean force, rather than just violence.) I do think that taxes in the US are theftaxes. If I did not know that I would be tossed in jail, or effectively exiled, I would not be paying as much tax as I do, to support so many government programs that I am opposed to. It is this use of force that makes US taxes theftaxes. The only leverage a political system should have over people in causing them to pay taxes is the possibility of loss of the benefits of belonging to that system. This is analogous to a business refusing to provide a service to someone who refuses to pay for it. Citizenship *could* properly be made conditional upon payment of taxes. Polli might say "If you wont pay taxes, get out" - which means essentially the same thing, but applied specifically to *government* types of political systems. A government holds power over a geographic area, so that to "get out" really means being forced to give up one's hearth and homeland - hardly voluntary. The only way to avoid this problem is to either make taxes truly voluntary, or to give up the concept of a geographically based political system - since by letting people form or join other political systems without "moving out", the geographic monopoly on force of a government would be violated. I think that it might be interesting to discuss how the US tax system could be converted to pure "voltaxes". While it really doesnt seem like a necessary function of government, we could assume for the moment that no other problems would arise from allowing people that wanted to to designate that they be taxed more and the money given to the world's hungry, or whatever. The questions that we *need* to answer are - What *should* be paid for by everyone? How can we get them to pay for it without using force, and without some spoiling it by "free-loading" (that could encourage future changes back towards theftaxes)? (Ayn Rand proposed that the government charge a fee for every contract that the involved parties wanted enforced, in proportion to the amount of money involved.) How is spending of the tax money to be controlled? Could whatever proposal we come up with be made into law, within the reality of our current political system? How? Tom Craver hou5a!trc
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/15/84)
===============
The only leverage a political system should have over people in causing them
to pay taxes is the possibility of loss of the benefits of belonging to that
system. This is analogous to a business refusing to provide a service to
someone who refuses to pay for it.
Tom Craver
hou5a!trc
===============
Like much of Tom's writing, the piece from which this is taken has its
own internal logic, but little connection with reality. Sure, we can
disconnect Tom's sewer pipe, but who pays for the typhoid he then spreads?
Can we keep him off the road and sidewalk without infringing on his
right to movement and assembly? Can we deny him his television, on
the grounds that much of the fundamental research that went into its
construction was paid for by taxes he didn't voluntarily give? Can we
ensure that he doesn't use a million other facilities that he doesn't
even know were paid by his involuntary taxes?
Let's be realistic as well as logical. It is IMPOSSIBLE for any person,
even an objectivist, to know everything that is going on. We delegate
political responsibility to those we elect, and they delegate technical
responsibility to a myriad of commissions, bureaucrats, etc. etc. Of
course the system can get out of hand; it takes a lot of work to maintain
a reasonable balance between freedom and responsibility. But objective
anarchy won't help anyone. There was a nice quote from JFK in the paper
a couple of days ago, to the effect that he thought that when there was
a flood, all boats rise (talking about the economy and who benefits from
a good one).
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtmsimpson@bbncca.ARPA (Mike Simpson) (03/15/84)
***
15 March 1984.
Following up Tom Craver's (hou5a!trc) question on what
*should* be paid for by everyone -- I would stick to funding a
court system and a standing army. Other items should be
voluntary, and should NOT have to be funded by those who do not
use the services provided.
REASONED comments welcomed.
--
-- cheers,
Mike Simpson, BBN
msimpson@bbn-unix (ARPA)
{decvax,linus,wjh12}!bbncca!msimpson (Usenet)
617-497-2819 (Ma Bell)bwm@ccieng2.UUCP ( Brad Miller) (03/22/84)
Interesting concept. How about having multiple governments, which you can voluntarily decide to join. Or you can remain 'sovereign'. The geographic areas would overlap, i.e. the entire US would be in the domain of all of the governments, but each patch of land would be a member of one, depending on the owner's choice. If you really felt you benefitted by multiple citizenships, feel free (if you could afford the taxes). Comments? -- ...[rlgvax, ritcv]!ccieng5!ccieng2!bwm
hom@hocda.UUCP (H.MORRIS) (03/24/84)
>> Following up Tom Craver's (hou5a!trc) question on what >> *should* be paid for by everyone -- I would stick to funding a >> court system and a standing army. Other items should be >> voluntary, and should NOT have to be funded by those who do not >> use the services provided. Of course you need some way of identifying those peope who do/don't help pay for say the police so they don't waste time on the non-payers. Perhaps a prominent tattoo (too easily forged), or some sort of implanted electronic device.
hom@hocda.UUCP (H.MORRIS) (03/24/84)
References: >> Interesting concept. How about having multiple governments, which you can >> voluntarily decide to join. Or you can remain 'sovereign'. The geographic >> areas would overlap, i.e. the entire US would be in the domain of all >> of the governments, but each patch of land would be a member of one, depending >> on the owner's choice. If you really felt you benefitted by multiple citizenships, >> feel free (if you could afford the taxes). >> >> Comments? >> >> -- >> ...[rlgvax, ritcv]!ccieng5!ccieng2!bwm I'm not sure you're serious, although the first guy apparently was. Anyway, it was called feudalism, and it didn't work. You might say feudalism wasn't voluntary. I don't think this system would stay voluntary for very long either.
ntt@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) (03/27/84)
You know, this terminology of "voltaxes" versus "theftaxes" looks awfully weird to anyone who knows that "vol" is French for "theft"... Mark Brader
fair@dual.UUCP (Erik E. Fair) (03/30/84)
Wither Eminent Domain?
Erik E. Fair
dual!fair@Berkeley.ARPA
{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!fair
Dual Systems Corporation, Berkeley, California