reply to post by Observor
No, it is like saying individuals need food, so they need to pay those providing the food.
That is actually what I am describing. The current system bypasses charity towards those who can't afford food and goes straight to robbing people
for it at gunpoint (taxation).
No commernce is possible without commons. Since commons are owned by the state, the state has a right to ask those who use the commons to pay
for commercial use of the commons. That is the source of the state's right to mandatory taxation. How exactly the commercial use of the commons
computed and tax liability of different individuals determined is a matter of detail and convenience.
You make it sound as if paying for the upkeep of commons is the only thing taxes pay for. The determination of the liability of different people is
not a matter of detail if you're going to put guns to people to get the money. My taxes go towards much, much more than just the commons I use.
Paying for the upkeep of the commons is a tiny fraction. I don't wish to be forced to fund illegal wars for instance. Pretty big chunks of money go
there. Is it moral for the state to put a gun to me and demand I contribute to the murder of innocent civilians in a distant country? I am more than
happy to pay for the commons I use. I don't wish to be threatened with violence into paying for other peoples too.
You may or may not be happy paying the price of petrol at the pump. That is immaterial. Equally immaterial is whether you are happy with the
extent of taxation the state determines is your share to pay for using the state owned property, the commons.
Neither the price you pay for petrol nor the taxes you pay to the state for your use of the commons is theft.
I'm very happy with the price of petrol minus the cut the state takes at gunpoint. What it costs for my use of the commons is not even in the same
ballpark to what I pay in tax.
Purchasing petrol is a mutually beneficial transaction leaving both parties better off. Taxation is being robbed at gunpoint. It is theft. Theft is
not required to run commons (or for what the majority of taxes actually pay for).
As I said earlier, you can claim it is immoral only when you do not use commons.
Oh so I'm happy for pay for whatever commons I use, therefore it is moral for the state to take half my income at gunpoint and use the majority of it
to pay for services I don't want or use?
I also question your assertion that state provided commons provide more liberty than private commons. In private commons you pay as you go. To make
profits the people must get what they want, else they will use a competitors commons. The most popular commons will provide freedom to the extent that
the individual can do what he wants, provided he is not harming anyone else or their property. Everything listed on the OP goes. What sort of freedom
do you get under the current system obeying countless unjust laws?
The terms for using the commons are also very clear, paying all the applicable taxes.
So because I want to use commons, while they have a gun to my head they can start calling out whatever terms they like? I use commons, therefore I
must also contribute to illegal wars, other peoples education, an oppressive police force, bank bailouts, government debt, etc. I don't agree to
If you can figure out a way of existing without using the commons, you should put forward a proposal to be exempted from any kind of taxation,
since you have no use for the state's property and the state still insists on taxing you then you can call it immoral.
What about if I calculate the costs of my use, then ask for a refund for 90% of my tax back?
Taxes are paying for what you use, but as determined by the state and not you. It is not any different from a private business either, the
business decides what the price is and the terms of payment are, not the consumer.
No, it is very different because consumers have a choice. They are not having a gun pointed at them and forced into the transaction. They can deal
with a competitor or no one at all. Therefore businesses must create terms and conditions that are fair. The state can do what it wants.
Not sure where you would get a moral state in a society where people care about nothing more than themselves. Why would individuals who care
about nothing except their interests be suddenly interested in what is moral and what is not when they become part of the state? Why would businesses
refrain from tempting the state administrators to make laws that benefit them?
That is the current system and it does not work. A moral state would not allow businesses to lobby for laws to benefit them because the state would be
unable to make crime out of things that are not crimes (no victim = no crime).
You can't get a moral state in a society where the ultimate goal of everyone is their own personal advancement.
I disagree. That is
the current goal of everyone. It is human nature. The sooner we have a system to accommodate that, the better. It's not as
if we can change human nature to get it to fit to the current system.
Again you are not addressing the point. I believe I have shown that it is impossible for any society to exist without a state.
IMO a moral state is ideal, but no state is still better than the current system.
If you admit that, then you also have to admit that state will be run by individuals from that society who can be expected to be
motivated/limited by the same things as the rest of the society. State will have coercive power, without which it cannot manage its property, the
A state run by selfish individuals must to be allowed to have coercive power. Else those in power use that power and coercion to control others to
their own advantage. When people pay for what they use, the power is in the hands of the people (voting for what they want with their wallets).
When the state charges the citizens for the commercial use of the commons through mandatory taxation, whatever the nature, and uses the funds
for the state's expenditure the chances that the individuals running the show can be corrupted by special interests is much less than when the only
source of revenue for the state is voluntary contributions from interested parties.
The current system is highly corruptible. When people vote with their wallets only services that the people actually want are provided! If people
don't want something, there is no funding. The moral state actually governs very little and does not give individuals much political power. The power
remains with the masses because they are free to only contribute to what they want or agree with.
Imagine a corporation in a "free-market" owning all the commons that the state owns today. Imagine this corporation offfering a deal to the
public: that they pay exactly what the pay the state today, under the exact terms and also that no customer of the corporation may deal with a
non-customer in any way whatsoever. It is a completely "voluntary" deal. Should you enter into the deal would you call paying taxes to the
corporation "robbery"? Or would you rather not enter into the deal and stay and rot on your property?
I would use the services of a competing organization, as would millions of others. This would mean the original organization would have to create fair
terms to attract customers (unlike the state they would be unable to force everybody to pay and obey their terms at gunpoint).
Large monopolies do not exist in the free market.