dineen@apollo.uucp (Terence H Dineen) (02/08/85)
> ... > >But I cannot agree with arguments that there is no justification for taxation, > >or other such group fees as union dues. > > Ahh, how subtly it slips by. Almost escapes one's notice. Taxation is a > "group fee"? Sure am glad to know I can cancel my membership at any time, > ... > This is a perverted use of the phrase "group fee", and shows your > reluctance to acknowledge the coercive nature of taxation. > > --Barry > > -- > Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley This is a perverted use of the word "coercive". You can cancel your membership at anytime. You are free to emigrate. Former citizens living elsewhere are not taxed (I hope). I don't like many of the ends to which my taxes are put and I wish they were used in ways in which they are not but I admit that it is my own decision to continue to participate in this imperfect union. I grant that there aren't any Libertaria's out there to emigrate to but whose fault is that? (It is a significant fact, I think.) To the extent that participation in the tax system is voluntary (in this fundamental "last resort" sense) how can it be said to be coerced? Much more plausible claims of coercion can be made when a state uses force against persons who have not volunteered to follow its rules (and meta-rules) or when it uses force against its own members in violation of the agreed upon rules. Examples are: (1) force against foreigners who are not posing a clear and immediate threat to the human rights of those who are members of that state and (2) unlawful police violence. Terry Dineen
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (02/11/85)
>You can cancel your membership at anytime. You are >free to emigrate. Former citizens living elsewhere are not taxed (I hope). > Terry Dineen Actually, moving to another country will generally cost you more than the taxes we were discussing in the first place. This is like saying you can easily prevent the government's cutting off your fingers by cutting off your arm ahead of time. It's nothing like membership in a groub that you can cancel by saying "Count me out." Another point to note is that foreign nationals working in the US are required to pay taxes here, and that American citizens abroad are still required to pay taxes here. --JoSH
dineen@apollo.uucp (Terence H Dineen) (02/12/85)
> >You can cancel your membership at anytime. You are > >free to emigrate. Former citizens living elsewhere are not taxed (I hope). > > Actually, moving to another country will generally cost you more than > the taxes we were discussing in the first place. This is like > saying you can easily prevent the government's cutting off your > fingers by cutting off your arm ahead of time. I thought we were discussing the use of the word "coercive". Saying you're not free because it will cost you to exercise your freedom sounds like a Carnesian position (with which I sympathize though I would not expect a libertarian to). > It's nothing like membership in a groub that you can cancel by > saying "Count me out." Agreed, some ties bind more tightly than others (in a practical sense); but that does not prove "coercion". > > Another point to note is that foreign nationals working in the US > are required to pay taxes here, and that American citizens abroad > are still required to pay taxes here. So we agree (at least in the case of the US): Former citizens living elsewhere are not taxed. > --JoSH Terry Dineen
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (02/14/85)
>> Actually, moving to another country will generally cost you more than >> the taxes we were discussing in the first place. This is like >> saying you can easily prevent the government's cutting off your >> fingers by cutting off your arm ahead of time. > >I thought we were discussing the use of the word "coercive". Saying you're >not free because it will cost you to exercise your freedom sounds like a >Carnesian position (with which I sympathize though I would not expect a >libertarian to). > Terry Dineen Well, we sure have run the gamut of definitions of "coercive". R. Carnes believes it *is* coercion to offer someone a good or service that he desperately needs; T. Dineen believes that the implacable seizure of your goods by the most powerful armed organization on the face of the earth is *not* coercion because if you move halfway around the world, they won't do it again next year. Why don't you guys grant the libertarian's *technical* meaning of coercion *purely for the sake of the argument* so we can spend less time quibbling about definitions? If you want to say, "taking advantage of someone's misfortune", say "taking advantage"; if you want to indicate that a fate that someone has planned for you can be avoided by a desperate effort that will irrevocably change your life, say "avoidable calamity". The technical meaning of coercion is clear: Someone is coercing you when he makes you do something, or does something to you or your property, that you did not want to do or have done, by force, threat of force, or deception. If you are using the word with some other definition in mind, please say so when you use it. --JoSH