It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
The less you pay in, the less you get out.edit on 7/8/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by stephinrazin
No. Government exists as a contract among individuals with rights who decided to create an entity derived from those rights. Life, liberty, and property are the rights of every living being. Government is an entity that exists to ensure the protection of those rights. It derives its power from those inalienable rights. If any government ever acts to infringe on the life, liberty, or property of an individual it dissolves the contract.
Taxation has no role in the contract. If a community decides to enforce taxation it must be done voluntarily, or it is violence. The fact the government exists does not mean a contract exists for taxing a populace. That taxation would be infringing upon the liberty and property of an individual. The rights of any individual are sacrosanct unless that person infringes on those same rights of another. Since government only has power within the rights of the individuals which it derives its power it cannot tax legally. If it is does tax it is indeed using the threat of force and violence, and in doing so threatening life. This dissolves the contract, and means the government is not longer a legitimate institution.
The costs are distributed among the population, thus minimizing individual cost, while the benefit is distributed among the whole of the governed, even those who for whatever reason aren't obligated to pay taxes.
The idea that a middle man in any economic relationship can lower individual cost is incorrect.
If I buy a shirt from you it costs x. If I send the money to Washington DC, and then DC sends it to you. My shirt just cost me x+y(bureaucratic costs/transit costs/regulatory cots).
The benefit is distributed among those some in the technocratic bureaucracy deem appropriate to receive funds. The whole population receives only the violence of taxation.
Using the government's services - say, using a road - without paying for it - taxes - is theft; you are thus the one perpetrating theft against those who are paying for the service you are using sans cost.
You cannot steal what was stolen from you.
The less you pay in, the less you get out. And the less impact taxpayers have, the less incentive for the elected officials to give a damn about the people.
I don't understand. The influence of the tax payer is derived by the amount of taxation?
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
First, let's start with your initial assumption; that government is a contract between individuals to provide a particular cast of services (which you handwave as "protecting rights").
Alright, if we take this as being true, then we have to figure out... Where does the money come from? 'cause like it or not, protecting the rights of the community does come with costs.
A reasonable collection of individuals forming a government would come up with the idea that the community under the aegis of this institution fund it themselves with regular dues. I.e., taxes. Thus a people consenting to benefit from the institution of government are explicitly also agreeing to footing the payment for the cost of services provided by that institution.
Taxes are voluntary; as I have been pointing out, you are free to leave the contract. You can hie off to some tax-free state. you can drop off the grid.
You have options and are not forced into the system. it is only people like Neo_Serf and, if I guess right, yourself - people who want all the services of government but are unwilling to pay for any of them - that have the problem. You continue to indulge yourself in the benefits of the institution of government, then you need to pay your part of the costs.
Actually you pay (X+Y) -z, where z is the contributions of many other people into the "get a shirt for stephinrazin" program. As I said, it reduces individual costs to the consumer. In effect, your cost is subsidized by others paying into the system with you.
Your notion of the population receiving only the "violence" is factually untrue, at least in the vast majority of instances. If there's a "Sheriff of Nottingham" situation where taxes are collected but nothing is offered to the populace at all, then yes, in that case the populace is receiving only the violence - but in such a situation, there are very likely much larger problems than the tax system (Say, a jealous prince usurping the rightful king and murdering his rivals)
of course, such societies are fairly few in number, and tend to stand out as places to avoid. Like North Korea. or Texas.
Well, thing is we're not talking about you reappropriating your stuff - we're talking about you literally stealing the stuff of others because you mistakenly believe that it's all yours.
Sort of; it's a bit larger-scale than the individual in this case. Basically, it's as I described to Neo_Serf in my last post in this thread, about how cuts to taxes and spending have historically led to a fast track of military dictatorship. Invariably the first things to get cut with a lack of tax revenue are systems that are in place to respond to the citizenry, while the last things cut are the least-responsive; the military and the wannabe dictators.
Originally posted by stephinrazin
Service and rights are very different. Services suggests the providing of something. Rights are those privileges guaranteed by the fact we are alive. I did not create this definition. It is the result of enlightenment thought from men like Locke and Hume. This definition is the foundation of the American Republic.(or was)
The money required for protection of the rights would be agreed upon at the foundation of the government. If that government expands that taxation beyond what is necessary for the protection of these rights the taxes are unjust.
Risk imprisonment in a rape room? I also have the choice to jump off a cliff, but that does not mean I should do it. I am forced by threat of violence.
What do I indulge in? The roads. The police, The fire fighter. All paid for by local property taxes. What do I get from income tax? Inheritance tax? Capital Gains tax? Medicare/Medicaid/social security taxes?(They will all be bankrupt before I retire) Whatever so called benefits this state provides pales in comparison to the amount taken.
What? No matter how many people pay in they are all paying more by dealing with a middle party. If every person buys a shirt they all pay more my sending the money through DC. I don't really understand your thinking.
The idea is philosophical. The state holds the threat of violence over your head in order to get taxation. You personally may not experience it, but the threat is there. Still, someone does receive the violence of the state whether you do or not.
The state seized my money outside of its rights. It used this money to make roads. How can I steal what was stolen from me?
That is a pretty blanket statement. I think that is a pretty hard argument to back up. That every time a government cuts taxes or spending they move toward dictatorship.
I would argue the opposite. The more money the state taxes and spends the greater the move toward dictatorship. I strongly recommend a Road to Serfdom(Abridged). This Austrian witnessed the rise of Nazism, and knows a fair more then we do about the danger of state of power.
I will agree the military is the last thing to be cut. The situation that allowed for the military to have such influence is the denial of the dangers of increased state power. Without years of entrenched state power through oppressive taxation, regulation, and bureaucracy dictatorships could not come to power.
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
Well, that's because folks like Neo_Serf and stephinrazin support legislation that creates 0% taxation for the most wealthy. This can easily be reversed.
Whatever. The principle is the same in any nation you go to.
I'm afraid you do. You live in Canada, right? That means you claim residence in Canada. Which makes you subject to Canadian Law.
if you participate in the myriad systems of Canada, you are claiming part of Canadian society, and are subject to the costs as well as the benefits. if you participate in Canadian politics, then you are certainly a citizen of Canada, and are held to all the responsibilities of that state as well as the benefits.
But you clearly do use the roads. You clearly do use the Canadian health care system. I guess it's another assumption, but i imagine you enjoy the current position more than if you were to have no roads, and no recourse for medical needs that your current financial position could not cover. Regardless of if you love it or hate it, you use it. That means that you are obligated to pay into the services you are utilizing.
Except it's not being stolen from you. In fact judging from the fact that you are the one using the roads and medical system (and doubtless, many other resources provided to you by Canada) but you don't want to pay taxes, YOU are the thief. YOU are the mugger. You wish to steal the money of your countrymen, by having them pay your way without contributing yourself.
I would suggest you take a few ethics classes, but they are undoubtedly funded in part by tax dollars, so I guess that's a no-go. Given this is your belief, you are a participant - and sorry, you're clearly a willing participant in what you consider to be a brutal and immoral system. As pointed out, you have options that you choose to not engage in. Where is your moral high ground here?
Actually they do. Prices in fact would be higher without these subsidies. When we're talking about mandatory resources like petroleum and food, that does make a difference. Especially if you're in a nation like, oh, Canada, that has widely-spaced population centers and an unfortunate inability to affordably produce enough food to supply its own population (don't feel bad; Australia has the same problems)