NationStates Jolt Archive

There are numerous reasons why tax collecting is more efficient, but they are unimportant. What is important is that given tax collection and enforcement is more efficient its less likely that so much money would be spent for negative returns.

My understanding is the way the IRS runs shop is they base current enforcement based off of projected profitability.

Since you mentioned it in your last reply, I assume.

since Al Capone went to jail for Tax evasion in the 1930's



The whole legal system works mostly on deterrence, at least as the means of last resort. People who break the law are fined or jailed. Incentives, of which deterrents/sticks are a part of, do work.

The reason I do not murder is because it is wrong to murder, I do not avoid murder because of fear of punishment. If I break a law it is what I perceived to be the right thing to do at that time irregardless of what the laws says.


The hypothetical CEO being discussed was one who was bailed out. Taxing the bonuses was a way to restore some legitimacy of the TARP funds, ya know the bailout money.government handout money. To bitch about having some of your corporate welfare taken away is unlikely to gain much sympathy.

The government bought the company, for all intensive purposes. If any other entity had bought the company the government's law would have enforced those contracts and bonus payments. I would find the government enforcing laws on others but not itself to be the height of illegitimacy.
The whole tax them at 90% is just a appeal to populism. The Money has already been paid, Any tax law put in place could not cover it at best it could only cover new bonuses and such, which will have all already been paid out at the time.

No, I'm implicitly assuming that wealth is not something that anyone has an inherent claim to. You're conflating moral relations with material ones.
We live in a material world. Ultimately any wealth I create exists solely because I decided to create it. If I stopped doing it, there'd be nothing to tax and nothing to feed the poor with, regardless of how many other people would have been involved in the process. Whatever would be created would not be what would've been created had I been involved. So then we could continue arguing about how what's left should be distributed, but that misses the point. Distribution and inequality are completely irrelevant, what matters is the actual wealth/income or the things it buys that individuals have. If we're all equally poor, you haven't improved anything.

So then if it really is society's exclusive right to decide that some can be made worse off for the benefit of others, then it would be society's exclusive right to make sure I create as much wealth as possible for the benefit of others.

So whether I have a property right to the wealth I create or not, I certainly have a right to my time and labour I use in the process. You can't split the two. You don't have to recognise any moral connection, but there is the very real, practical fact that if you tax a dollar out of the economy, if this dollar exists, it represents the time and effort someone spent creating it. So if you're saying that society really has the right to take this dollar, then it's not a question of redistributing physical wealth, it's a question of redistributing people's time and labour.

Society has the right to be wrong, and you do not have the right to rule; politically speaking, in the framework of the social contract your right to property always stems from social legitimation, even if, morally speaking, the right society ought to recognize originates from your own labor.
Society has the right to be wrong? I disagree as soon as violence is involved. Anyone can be wrong, but no one has the right to enforce a wrong (or indeed, a correct) opinion on others. It doesn't matter whether they tell themselves that they represent something other than themselves.

And I don't claim a right to rule over anything more than myself. But over that, my right is exclusive.

No one ever creates much wealth with their brains and their work and nothing else. Wealth is a social product. That's why markets exist.

It's the sum total of everyone's individual production, is it not? Yes, there are economies of scale, specialisation and so on, but that doesn't make anything I produce appear out of nothing. If I stepped away from work, what I would have produced would not be produced. You just cannot consider society separately from the people it's made up of. In this matter it just makes no sense, you don't gain any explanatory or any other power in doing so.

The market puts forward one standard as to how this can be done justly: your voluntary choice to consent to the exchange of labor for payment. The democrat (and the socialist, more fully) puts forward another standard: your equal participation in the rules governing the economic conditions in which your labor is exchanged.
Why are the conditions under why my labour is exchange subject to equal participation by all? Just where does someone from potentially thousands of kilometers away get the right from to "equally" participate (and you must be aware of what that means in practice) in whether I work in my friend's fruit shop and the conditions under which I do it? I mean, I certainly don't want to decide on how this guy makes a living. And he has no idea about how I live, what I can do and what the best arrangement for me would be. Given that it is my life we're deciding about here, doesn't it kinda make sense that I get a more than equal share in the decision?

There is nothing individualist or libertarian about a system like that. Socialist, maybe. Democratic, definitely. But in questions like this, democracy is not a good thing.

Taxation violates neither: no one is forced to work (and taxation is merely another condition on the exchange of labor for payment), and no one is restricted from political participation.
Let's say I want to earn $1000. I go and start earning money, but there is a tax rate of 20%. So I have to work until I earn $1250, so that after tax I get my thousand bucks. I have worked 25% longer than I would have otherwise. Of course it's not force in that I could have chosen not to work, but it is still a severely suboptimal outcome, brought about by the legitimised use of violence against me.

Yes, you do. You are required, first, to obey the laws set forth to ensure the mutual protection of freedom, and second, to grant political support to the laws that guarantee justice for all--even if they do so at your expense.
There is no justice and no protection of freedom in letting vital parts of my existence be decided by anonymous majorities.

"The government" is not a private entity and has no need to "earn them." It is the vehicle of allocation, not a recipient of allocation in itself.
In real life, it is. As I said to Errinundera in another post, in reality the connection between government and society is virtually non-existant. At the very least the interests of the recipients of government services are generally ignored in favour of the next election result.

It is the individuals to whom property is (or services are) allocated who must make a claim, though at least some legitimate claims have little to do with what has been "earned."
If they could make such a claim, they can do it themselves. They don't need guns to do so. If you're saying that we need some representation of society that can enforce these claims on me, then that must mean that these claims are such that they either can't feasibly be presented to me in an appropriate manner (that is, they can be rationally and objectively explained to me), or that they simply aren't valid and I wouldn't accept them. Unless of course you presume that I would reject valid and objective claims just because I'm evil.

I suppose this also sort of explains why Trickle Down Economics will never work. People are more than happy to get money, but they'll only part with it at gunpoint.

My understanding is the way the IRS runs shop is they base current enforcement based off of projected profitability.

Meaning they try to get as much tax money for as little cost?

The reason I do not murder is because it is wrong to murder, I do not avoid murder because of fear of punishment. If I break a law it is what I perceived to be the right thing to do at that time irregardless of what the laws says.

So you speed when you know its likely a cop car is near by or park in handicapped parking spaces? Most people respong to positive incentives and disincentives. Its basic economics. Morality is, of course, a factor in people's behavior, quite an effecient motivator at that, but its not the whole of how people act. Expected consequences of an action also matter.


The government bought the company, for all intensive purposes. If any other entity had bought the company the government's law would have enforced those contracts and bonus payments. I would find the government enforcing laws on others but not itself to be the height of illegitimacy.
The whole tax them at 90% is just a appeal to populism. The Money has already been paid, Any tax law put in place could not cover it at best it could only cover new bonuses and such, which will have all already been paid out at the time.

The government is not like another entity. It runs by different rules and for different purposes. It was an appeal to populism but expecting the government to act like a corporate body is the height of idiocy. Of course it would respond to popular sentiment. That's how a democratic government acts.

Meaning they try to get as much tax money for as little cost?
Just like any other corporation.



So you speed when you know its likely a cop car is near by or park in handicapped parking spaces? Most people respong to positive incentives and disincentives. Its basic economics. Morality is, of course, a factor in people's behavior, quite an effecient motivator at that, but its not the whole of how people act. Expected consequences of an action also matter.


Yeah if i am late for work I am late for work.



The government is not like another entity. It runs by different rules and for different purposes. It was an appeal to populism but expecting the government to act like a corporate body is the height of idiocy. Of course it would respond to popular sentiment. That's how a democratic government acts.
When a government buys a corporation they should act like a corporation or they should not buy the corporation. Doubly so when they pass a law saying bonuses/contracts agreed to before February will be honored. To exempt governments Democratic or not from the rule of law is the highest degree of tyranny.

Just like any other corporation.

The government isn't any other corporation

Yeah if i am late for work I am late for work.

When a government buys a corporation they should act like a corporation or they should not buy the corporation. Doubly so when they pass a law saying bonuses/contracts agreed to before February will be honored. To exempt governments Democratic or not from the rule of law is the highest degree of tyranny.

If an elected official gives a friend, relative, or political ally an absurdly high pension in their contract for some public sector job you'd expect the government to honor the agreement when/if this became public and caused an uproar? The government is not a corporation. It has different goals. To think it would act like another corporation. Also, arguably giving the TARO funds in the first place violated the rule of law so that paying said bonuses violates the rule of law meaning that taxing them heavily mitigates the damage.

The government isn't any other corporation

Your right this one has a monopoly on the use of force.


If an elected official gives a friend, relative, or political ally an absurdly high pension in their contract for some public sector job you'd expect the government to honor the agreement when/if this became public and caused an uproar? The government is not a corporation. It has different goals. To think it would act like another corporation. Also, arguably giving the TARO funds in the first place violated the rule of law so that paying said bonuses violates the rule of law meaning that taxing them heavily mitigates the damage.

Who in AIG was a relative or friend, it was an aid of the president who talked the senators into putting that section of law back in the bill for the purchase of AIG. Except the government wrote a law for the voluntary acquisition of AIG. In that law was a a provision that their bonuses still stand. So your saying that the legislature violated the rule of law by legislating ?

Your right this one has a monopoly on the use of force.

They have a monopoly on being elected by the adult population of the state they operate in too. To compare a government to a corporation is disingenuous. The two are very different entities.

They have a monopoly on being elected by the adult population of the state they operate in too. To compare a government to a corporation is disingenuous. The two are very different entities.

Just as the governing body of a corporation is elected by share holders ?

Just as the governing body of a corporation is elected by share holders ?

Share holders have as much say as the amount of shares they own. One cannot buy more votes to use in an election.

Share holders have as much say as the amount of shares they own. One cannot buy more votes to use in an election.

Things would go so much better if we could.

Things would go so much better if we could.

I can scarcely believe that you actually think so. My Poe Sense is impaired. I blame beer.

I can scarcely believe that you actually think so. My Poe Sense is impaired. I blame beer.

I dont even know if I am being sarcastic anymore.

I dont even know if I am being sarcastic anymore.

In that case, I shall get my hip flask of Jack Daniels and join you in your ignorance :)

In that case, I shall get my hip flask of Jack Daniels and join you in your ignorance :)

For some reason the rum just made me apathetic.

For some reason the rum just made me apathetic.

The drinker in me cannot argue with a point fuelled by rum.

The drinker in me cannot argue with a point fuelled by rum.

Perhaps if Whiskey was in me I would be more impassioned. Last time I had a good whiskey drunk I cussed out Neoart for no reason.

Perhaps if Whiskey was in me I would be more impassioned. Last time I had a good whiskey drunk I cussed out Neoart for no reason.

In Irish the term for whiskey translates directly as "The water of life". Hardly surprising that it inspires violent passion.

In Irish the term for whiskey translates directly as "The water of life". Hardly surprising that it inspires violent passion.

and what does rum mean drunk and sitting on my ass ?

and what does rum mean drunk and sitting on my ass ?

Eh, no applicable word. Try another language.

It's not a game, it's a matter of justice. Should rich and powerful people be able to use their resources to become even more rich and powerful at the expense of the public good--especially while people without such resources are forced to pick up the slack? No.

Tax evasion is not an ounce more legitimate than simple theft. Indeed, since the sums involved are often much larger, it is probably a more egregious problem.

Why is stealing so wrong when private citizens do it, but okay when the state does it?

Why is stealing so wrong when private citizens do it, but okay when the state does it?

Because power decides morality.

God > State > Ruler > Man holding a gun.

Because power decides morality.

State > Ruler >God = the Man holding a gun
fixed

Because power decides morality.

God > State > Ruler > Man holding a gun.

Fail.

Edit: Not you or your post, but the way things are.

Fail.

Edit: Not you or your post, but the way things are.

Life is like a fucked-up game: You would do better to take advantage of the glitches than to complain to the unresponsive designer.

Why is stealing so wrong when private citizens do it, but okay when the state does it?

It's not ok however the state has the power to imprison you. That's the difference.

You could also consider tax evasion as keeping your money from being stole.

Aye, it's pretty treasonous stuff.

Life is like a fucked-up game: You would do better to take advantage of the glitches than to complain to the unresponsive designer.

I know a lot of successful people. Not one of them plays by the rules 100%. You can't and if you did you would lead a mediocre life at best.

I know a lot of successful people. Not one of them plays by the rules 100%. You can't and if you did you would lead a mediocre life at best.

He who cheats the most without getting caught wins.

Only if you dont use any government provided services, police and fire department included.

Which, since even police presence in your neighborhood is you using the police....

I know a lot of successful people. Not one of them plays by the rules 100%. You can't and if you did you would lead a mediocre life at best.

Of course. Breaking the rules gives one an advantage; when one is playing against cheaters, how can one win without some disregarding of "fairness"?

Your right this one has a monopoly on the use of force.

There are a number of differences.


Who in AIG was a relative or friend, it was an aid of the president who talked the senators into putting that section of law back in the bill for the purchase of AIG.

No one that I know of. Its merely a hypothetical of the government not honoring a contract and by doing so correcting an illegitimate action, in the eyes of the majority of the populace, by doing so.

Except the government wrote a law for the voluntary acquisition of AIG. In that law was a a provision that their bonuses still stand. So your
saying that the legislature violated the rule of law by legislating ?

I'm saying it arguable since they don't buyout most firms. They are arguably acting arbitrarily towards AIG, which is what constitutes a violation the rule of law, in comparison to most other failing firms. Are you saying that the legislature violated the the rule of law by legislating the taxation of bonuses?

Just as the governing body of a corporation is elected by share holders ?

Votes are not transferable, unlike stocks, and the goal of shareholders is to make money. The government on the other hand has a myriad of goals, some of them contradictory. They are hardly the same thing

Why is stealing so wrong when private citizens do it, but okay when the state does it?

Because the state isnt stealing from you. No matter how much people like to pretend it is, you use services the state provides, even in the form of a standing military to deter aggressors.

Why is stealing so wrong when private citizens do it, but okay when the state does it?

By the state's definitions they are not stealing. The tax evader is stealing because taxation is legitimate. Not paying taxes is theft and the evader is the one who initiated force.

Why is stealing so wrong when private citizens do it, but okay when the state does it?

Who said it was okay when the state does it? Certainly not I.

Indeed, my entire argument has been that taxation is not "stealing" at all.

Because the state isnt stealing from you. No matter how much people like to pretend it is, you use services the state provides, even in the form of a standing military to deter aggressors.

I agree with you. But Ledgersia might think that a thief--even one who offers his services--is not justified.

I'm saying it arguable since they don't buyout most firms. They are arguably acting arbitrarily towards AIG, which is what constitutes a violation the rule of law, in comparison to most other failing firms. Are you saying that the legislature violated the the rule of law by legislating the taxation of bonuses?



Technically yes because the Tax did not exist when the bonus was paid.
Sort of like the government deciding it needs more money and raising your taxes on last years income. Not to mention it would be a bill of attainder, which is banned by the Constitution.
Did it pass ? Had not heard anything about ti for a month just assumed it died out.

Not to mention it would be a bill of attainder, which is banned by the Constitution.

A bill of attainder refers to criminla law, not taxation per se. Do you know of any case law where a change in the tax law was struck down by the courts with the banning of bills of attainder used to as justification?


Did it pass ? Had not heard anything about ti for a month just assumed it died out.

Dunno. You seemed to be acting as if it had passed so I assumed it had.

A bill of attainder refers to criminla law, not taxation per se. Do you know of any case law where a change in the tax law was struck down by the courts with the banning of bills of attainder used to as justification?

No I haven't. But at the same time I've never heard of Tax code targeting a specific group of people.
nothing on Taxes. However their is an 1867 ruling that an act of congress disbarring lawyers who has worked with the confederacy was unconstitutional. 1946 ruling where the government with held payments to three people because they were subversive was ruled unconstitutional.
the 1946 ruling could be used to extrapolate the government getting in the way of payments of contracts as unconstitutional.


Dunno. You seemed to be acting as if it had passed so I assumed it had.

Quick new search. seems Obama told the democrats in congress to drop it. Felt it was unconstitutional under section 9 of the Constitution. Likely the bill of attainder or the no Ex posto facto clause.

Who said it was okay when the state does it? Certainly not I.

Indeed, my entire argument has been that taxation is not "stealing" at all.

Unfortunately, the dictionary disagrees with you (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stealing):

steal   /stil/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [steel] Show IPA ,verb, stole, sto⋅len, steal⋅ing, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.

(The emphasis is mine, of course.)

Because the state isnt stealing from you. No matter how much people like to pretend it is, you use services the state provides, even in the form of a standing military to deter aggressors.

But I'm forced to pay for these (usually monopolistic) "services," whether I want to or not, and whether I use these "services" or not.

By the state's definitions they are not stealing. The tax evader is stealing because taxation is legitimate. Not paying taxes is theft and the evader is the one who initiated force.

What makes it legitimate?

What makes it legitimate?

The state defines property rights. That's the major reason. Why is it illegitimate?

The state defines property rights. That's the major reason. Why is it illegitimate?

All forms of aggression (theft, assault, etc.) are illegitimate, unless they're done only in self-defense and only when there is no other option.

Edit: (Hypothetical example) So if the state defines a certain repressive policy as "legitimate" (for example, Roosevelt's internment of Japanese-Americans), does that make it so?

All forms of aggression (theft, assault, etc.) are illegitimate, unless they're done only in self-defense and only when there is no other option.

A tax evader is the aggressor and thief.

All forms of aggression (theft, assault, etc.) are illegitimate, unless they're done only in self-defense and only when there is no other option.

Only one state define property as something that can not be taken away, and you ahve to get a special deed for that.

A tax evader is the aggressor and thief.

Who are they stealing from? Who are they aggressing against?

Answer: No one.

Edit: (Hypothetical example) So if the state defines a certain repressive policy as "legitimate" (for example, Roosevelt's internment of Japanese-Americans), does that make it so?

It doesn't. You just don't seem to recognize that their are disputes of what constitutes legitimate property rights. From different perspectives tax evader can be a thief or the state can be. Both sides see the other as the aggressor.

Another thing is that all the people on the planet dont come together and unanimously agree on what constitutes legitimate property rights. The state and social norms define property rights in practice, not consent. There is no known way to discover what constitutes natrual property rights. A mix of force and other incentives are what makes property rights work in practice. Gun nutty libertarians are no different from the state in this regard.

But I'm forced to pay for these (usually monopolistic) "services," whether I want to or not, and whether I use these "services" or not.
Pretty sure you'll use the vast majority of things the government provides, unless you've set up your own road network, police, military, school, hospital, etc. etc.

Who are they stealing from? Who are they aggressing against?

Answer: No one.

Answer: the rest of society by which the state is a vehicle for individuals to reach mutually beneficial goals.

So then if it really is society's exclusive right to decide that some can be made worse off for the benefit of others,

You are dogmatically reciting this slogan to the detriment of its substantive meaning. Any allocation of any kind denies some something for the benefit of others. So what?

then it would be society's exclusive right to make sure I create as much wealth as possible for the benefit of others.

Within the limits of your rights, and by rules which you participate in creating, yes.

You can't split the two.

Yes, you can. To do so is child's play: "You are free to allocate your labor as you see fit, but you do not have the automatic right to its material consequences." As a matter of fact we make this separation routinely in market capitalism, whenever a person is employed.

So if you're saying that society really has the right to take this dollar, then it's not a question of redistributing physical wealth, it's a question of redistributing people's time and labour.

Only if we conflate labor with its material product. But why on Earth would we do that? Marx tried, with rather disappointing results.

Anyone can be wrong, but no one has the right to enforce a wrong (or indeed, a correct) opinion on others.

So what right do you have to enforce your property system upon others? That is what tax evasion is.

And I don't claim a right to rule over anything more than myself.

Yes, you do. You claim jurisdiction over public, competitive matters: namely, property rights. To enforce your conception of property against someone else's is to rule over him or her: you wield force to defend not your own person, but external resources whose ownership you have merely asserted your entitlement to.

It's the sum total of everyone's individual production, is it not?

No, it isn't. The product is inherently social. It is not possible without society.

Yes, there are economies of scale, specialisation and so on, but that doesn't make anything I produce appear out of nothing. If I stepped away from work, what I would have produced would not be produced.

But so what? This narrow causal sense is not even how we measure value contributions on the market. It would make no sense to do so, because it leads to absurd conclusions. Imagine two people who individually would produce a value of x apiece, and together produce 2x + y. You would have us believe, by the logic of "stepp away from work", that both deserve x + y. No, market logic says: they deserve whatever they consent to in return for their labor. I agree.

You just cannot consider society separately from the people it's made up of.

Yes, you can, and in this case we must, if we are to make sense of the fact that we produce together far more on a per capita basis than we could if we all worked alone.

Why are the conditions under why my labour is exchange subject to equal participation by all? Just where does someone from potentially thousands of kilometers away get the right from to "equally" participate (and you must be aware of what that means in practice) in whether I work in my friend's fruit shop and the conditions under which I do it?

No one thousands of kilometers away is going to be making specific hiring decisions for your friend's fruit shop. But the general rules of the national economy, which are inherently a matter of concern for all citizens? Yes, of course. Why not?

(In a sense, you are missing the forest of the trees: do your specific conditions of employment affect that far-away person? Probably not in any measurable way. But do conditions of employment in general affect that person? Undoubtedly so. Why should you be exempted?)

I mean, I certainly don't want to decide on how this guy makes a living.

Yes, you do (well, presumably), if you abstract a bit. You want him (and everybody else) to make a living within the framework of free market capitalist economic conditions, and you will happily vote to bring about such an end. You cannot avoid the decision.

Given that it is [I]my life we're deciding about here, doesn't it kinda make sense that I get a more than equal share in the decision?

You remove the decision from all context. First, it is not "your" life only: your conditions of employment quite obviously have relevant effects on others. Second, it is not a decision made with respect to your life alone, but with respect to lives in general, including the lives of the people making the decisions. Third, your body and your labor remain your own: you are not a slave.

To put it in different terms: if the question is "How do we organize the economy for all of us?", why should you get any more than an equal share?

By the very nature of an economy, an inherently public matter, our choices cannot be decoupled from each other; individualism is not possible. We must have consistent rules of property: if I respect one version and you respect another, we cannot have a functioning economy and we both lose out. The question then is whether those rules of property that bind everyone ought to be determined by everyone, or instead by some elite. It seems clear to me which option is more consistent with freedom.

Let's say I want to earn $1000. I go and start earning money, but there is a tax rate of 20%. So I have to work until I earn $1250, so that after tax I get my thousand bucks. I have worked 25% longer than I would have otherwise.

...and even in a free-market utopia I cannot become a millionaire by teaching philosophy. So? The fact that you have to work more than you would like, or than you would in a hypothetical alternative economic arrangement, is not a convincing argument for entitlement.

Of course it's not force in that I could have chosen not to work, but it is still a severely suboptimal outcome, brought about by the legitimised use of violence against me.

All property rules are enforced by violence.

In real life, it is. As I said to Errinundera in another post, in reality the connection between government and society is virtually non-existant.

Government spending on social programs and the like is pretty clearly demanded by the public.

At the very least the interests of the recipients of government services are generally ignored in favour of the next election result.

Efficacy at the provision of public services is often a significant part of
the "next election result."

If they could make such a claim, they can do it themselves. They don't need guns to do so.

In a world where people disagree, they need at least the legitimation of public authority: otherwise we are left with "might makes right." Practically speaking, coercion is generally involved in the enforcement of the decisions of such public authorities, because neither moral perfection nor recognition of civic duty to the law are universal in human societies.

If you're saying that we need some representation of society that can enforce these claims on me, then that must mean that these claims are such that they either can't feasibly be presented to me in an appropriate manner (that is, they can be rationally and objectively explained to me), or that they simply aren't valid and I wouldn't accept them. Unless of course you presume that I would reject valid and objective claims just because I'm evil.

We are here right now debating the validity of certain property claims. I do not think either of us is evil. People disagree for other reasons.

You, for your part, have already suggested that you see no moral problem with transgressing social rules (which, in theory at least, need not be enforced via coercion) if they are not consistent with your preferred property theory. You undoubtedly know that you have your counterparts on the Left who have no difficulty violating the property rights of corporations and others deemed undeserving. On the reasonable assumption that neither you nor the referenced leftists are "evil", we are left with the realization that if we want to guarantee any system of property, we had better be able to enforce it even if we optimistically assume that pretty much everyone acts according to his or her good faith judgment of right.

It doesn't. You just don't seem to recognize that their are disputes of what constitutes legitimate property rights. From different perspectives tax evader can be a thief or the state can be. Both sides see the other as the aggressor.

I don't care what the state says. As much as it (the state) may wish otherwise, it does not own me, nor will it ever own me.

Another thing is that all the people on the planet dont come together and unanimously agree on what constitutes legitimate property rights. The state and social norms define property rights in practice, not consent.

If it's non-consensual/non-voluntary, it's illegitimate, social norms be damned. No one has the right to force their "norms" - whether said norms are religious, political, economic, or whatever - on anyone else. Everyone has the right to follow their own norms, provided they aren't infringing upon the right of others to do the same. If Soheran, Free soviets (sorry, guys, just using you as an example) wish to set up a stateless communist society with their own norms, they have every right to, provided that no one is forced to be a member of said society.

There is no known way to discover what constitutes natrual property rights. A mix of force and other incentives are what makes property rights work in practice.

Might does not make right...well, that depends on how you define "right," I guess.

Gun nutty libertarians are no different from the state in this regard.

Gun nutty libertarians don't hold a monopoly on jurisdiction or lock people in cages.

Pretty sure you'll use the vast majority of things the government provides, unless you've set up your own road network, police, military, school, hospital, etc. etc.

That's not the point. If the government holds a monopoly, I will have no choice but to use them.

Answer: the rest of society by which the state is a vehicle for individuals to reach mutually beneficial goals.

What are they stealing from society?

Edit: I have to get up early tomorrow (erm, later today, since it's after midnight), going to a relative's for Easter. I'll be back later on, and we can continue this.

Have a nice night, all. :)

That's not the point. If the government holds a monopoly, I will have no choice but to use them.

Unlike in anarchotopia where market forces backed up by guns determine property rights. Much different.

That's not the point. If the government holds a monopoly, I will have no choice but to use them.
Alright, why don't you earn basically no money so you don't pay taxes, build an autogyro in your garage and use it to get around the place to avoid the roads, homeschool your children, and decide to protect yourself from threats to kith and kin (not like you can't in an autogyro, after all).

There, you break the monopoly of force that society and government has on you. Then you can happily spend the rest of your life regretting being so adolescent about things when you go to the petrol station twice daily to fill yer ridiculous vehicle up.

Unfortunately, the dictionary disagrees with you (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stealing):

I could point out that, had you actually paid attention to my argument, you would have noted that the given definition does not in fact fit taxation as I have characterized it.

But rather than get into a pointless and stupid semantic dispute, I will simply note that dictionaries providing common-use definitions lose their relevance when it comes to an intellectually rigorous discussion of anything... and that citing the dictionary violates is/ought in any case, since even if taxation fit a more rigorous definition of "theft" it would not necessarily fit into the moral category of objectionable, morally prohibited theft.

What are they stealing from society?

The dues you owe for enjoying the benefits of society and enforcing the rights, which may include any number of positive rights including the right to have your negative rights enforced, of everyone in said society. You don't like it move to somewhere else that has a different social contract.

Of course. Breaking the rules gives one an advantage; when one is playing against cheaters, how can one win without some disregarding of "fairness"?

Right, even the most honest intentioned people once they get into business they are almost forced into playing by a different rule book than they would normally.

Because the state isnt stealing from you. No matter how much people like to pretend it is, you use services the state provides, even in the form of a standing military to deter aggressors.

Well what if you as a person already served in that standing army. Spent four years in it and served in a combat role? You as a person also will pay more taxes than 90-95% of the population ever will. You as a person also does not access the myriad of social services many of your fellow citizens demand and get from the state on your dime. So is that fair?

Ledgersia, allow me to address the issue of taxation (stealing) for you: In the world we live in, the most ruthless and capable are the most prosperous. It is true that taxing them is thievery, but it must be done. Because the inept cannot afford schools or privatized police, the rich must pay. What is more, taxation is a power-check: it prevents the rich from becoming feudal lords. The rich are being robbed, yes: whatever government services they use, they pay ten-times the services fair price.

Without the rich being robbed every now and again, the incapable would be miserable.

Well what if you as a person already served in that standing army. Spent four years in it and served in a combat role? You as a person also will pay more taxes than 90-95% of the population ever will. You as a person also does not access the myriad of social services many of your fellow citizens demand and get from the state on your dime. So is that fair?

Like I said it is about forcing change. Deny the government as much funding as possible so they realize current spending is unsustainable. As soon as spending is at a sustainable level I will gladly donate the Tax money, I withheld from the government.

Like I said it is about forcing change. Deny the government as much funding as possible so they realize current spending is unsustainable. As soon as spending is at a sustainable level I will gladly donate the Tax money, I withheld from the government.

Withholding taxes seldom brings them that realization. If you are unhappy with our current system, I suggest you:

A: Follow it despite your irritation.

B: Move to another country.

C: Run for office and affect a change.

Withholding taxes seldom brings them that realization. If you are unhappy with our current system, I suggest you:

A: Follow it despite your irritation.

B: Move to another country.

C: Run for office and affect a change.

If enough people avoid taxes it would affect that change. I doubt either party if given a choice between cut spending or run a Zimbabwe economy would elect the later option. It is really just a civil disobedience campaign.

If enough people avoid taxes it would affect that change.

I hear the same thing about voting.

I doubt either party if given a choice between cut spending or run a Zimbabwe economy would elect the later option.

Never underestimate the stupidity of our Government.

It is really just a civil disobedience campaign.

Which happens to benefit your pocket book....

But I'm forced to pay for these (usually monopolistic) "services," whether I want to or not, and whether I use these "services" or not.

You use the internet, so that's at least some tax money you owe.

Like I said it is about forcing change. Deny the government as much funding as possible so they realize current spending is unsustainable. As soon as spending is at a sustainable level I will gladly donate the Tax money, I withheld from the government.

Wrong way to go about it.

If you insist on civil disobedience to make a point, you must be public about it. Otherwise you are simply trying to sneak off with more than your share. Do what Thoreau did, and say to the taxman: "This tax is going to unjust causes, so I refuse to pay it." And then do what he did, and take the consequences for that.

People individually trying to sneak a bit away from the government won't change the tax system. People standing up publicly and saying what they won't pay and why they won't pay it has much more potential to. I will always support the second, but never the first.

I hear the same thing about voting.


The judgment of an individual’s conscience is not necessarily or even likely inferior to the decisions of a political body or majority, and so it is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.… Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.
If I find the current government to be immoral then it would make me immoral to give that government revenue.

Which happens to benefit your pocket book....

Except I have no intention of spending the money I hide. I am merely holding it in Escrow until the government regains its morality. At which time I would gladly donate my money to help the government.

If I find the current government to be immoral then it would make me immoral to give that government revenue.

You are a capitalist-anarchist, so you will always consider any form of Government to be immoral.

Except I have no intention of spending the money I hide. I am merely holding it in Escrow until the government regains its morality. At which time I would gladly donate my money to help the government.

"I will pay my taxes when politicians are ethical." You could also have said: "I will pay my taxes when pigs have wings."

You use the internet, so that's at least some tax money you owe.



Wrong way to go about it.

If you insist on civil disobedience to make a point, you must be public about it. Otherwise you are simply trying to sneak off with more than your share. Do what Thoreau did, and say to the taxman: "This tax is going to unjust causes, so I refuse to pay it." And then do what he did, and take the consequences for that.

People individually trying to sneak a bit away from the government won't change the tax system. People standing up publicly and saying what they won't pay and why they won't pay it has much more potential to. I will always support the second, but never the first.

Incorrect Thoreau did not pay taxes for 6 years before being sent to jail. He didn't go demand to be sent to jail. He simply when given the choice between paying the back taxes after avoid taxes for 6 years and jail choose jail.
If caught I will will take jail over any possible plea bargain, that involves me paying or even divulging the location of said tax money.
More over by what right do you get to define civil disobedience for me ?

You are a capitalist-anarchist, so you will always consider any form of Government to be immoral.

The Althing worked pretty well.


"I will pay my taxes when politicians are ethical." You could also have said: "I will pay my taxes when pigs have wings."

Either way I do not benefit from the money. One could also argue the reason politicians are unethical is people like you provide them with money.

The Althing worked pretty well.

If I recall, it allowed murders to be pardoned for a fine.

Either way I do not benefit from the money.

You will.

One could also argue the reason politicians are unethical is people like you provide them with money.

And one of the reasons businesses are unethical is because we provide them with money.

Incorrect Thoreau did not pay taxes for 6 years before being sent to jail. He didn't go demand to be sent to jail. He simply when given the choice between paying the back taxes after avoid taxes for 6 years and jail choose jail.
If caught I will will take jail over any possible plea bargain, that involves me paying or even divulging the location of said tax money.
More over by what right do you get to define civil disobedience for me ?

(Emphasis mine)

If one looks at the successful civil-disobedience campaigns throughout history, a key common feature is making it clear that they are disobeying. If the rulers (and the other people) are not clearly aware of your grievance, and what you are doing, they simply don't care that much about it. And if people don't care, your campaign tends to fail.

Consider this not an attempt at defining it for you, but some friendly suggestions about how you might find your aims easier to achieve. Presuming, that is, your aims are actually civil disobedience for the change of government policy, not just saving a bit of money that would otherwise go on taxes.

If I recall, it allowed murders to be pardoned for a fine.

First it was not a fine, it was closer to compensation to the victims family.
Second the pardon was all given in cases closer to what we would call manslaughter.
The Althing was perhaps one of the earliest governments not to kill someone for accidental but liable homicide.



And one of the reasons businesses are unethical is because we provide them with money.

By all means if you find a business unethical do not buy form them.

(Emphasis mine)

If one looks at the successful civil-disobedience campaigns throughout history, a key common feature is making it clear that they are disobeying. If the rulers (and the other people) are not clearly aware of your grievance, and what you are doing, they simply don't care that much about it. And if people don't care, your campaign tends to fail.



Do you think I am not vocal against spending ? I am assuming your meaning the Indian Independence movement and the American civil rights movement. Those campaigns were set up to involve masses of people being tossed in jail because oppressed represented a potion of the population that would bankrupt a government if Jailed. My goal would be to deny the government as much money as possible by making as much as I can with out paying for as long as possible. Because I will fill the job someone else who would pay taxes might fill.

First it was not a fine, it was closer to compensation to the victims family.
Second the pardon was all given in cases closer to what we would call manslaughter.
The Althing was perhaps one of the earliest governments not to kill someone for accidental but liable homicide.

But if I recall correctly, killing someone who was alert and armed was considered "manslaughter".

By all means if you find a business unethical do not buy form them.

I am very careful about which businesses I buy from. But I am asking, with all your complaints about giving money to unethical organizations, do you concern yourself with whether or not a company you buy from exploits children?

Do you think I am not vocal against spending ?

You expressed approval of Reagan.

And one of the reasons businesses are unethical is because we provide them with money.

The common denominator there seems to be money. If we abolish that, things should sort themselves out. [/halfjoking]

Do you think I am not vocal against spending ? I am assuming your meaning the Indian Independence movement and the American civil rights movement. Those campaigns were set up to involve masses of people being tossed in jail because oppressed represented a potion of the population that would bankrupt a government if Jailed. My goal would be to deny the government as much money as possible by making as much as I can with out paying for as long as possible. Because I will fill the job someone else who would pay taxes might fill.

But you will inevitably be unsuccessful, as you are just one person. One person, keeping secret, cannot make the sort of change you wish for.

The reason those campaigns you refer to were successful was because they made it clear to the population as a whole that the laws were unjust. By trying to sneak under the tax system, you don't. If you are actually trying to make a reasonable act of civil disobedience, with the ultimate aim of changing things, your current tactics are entirely unsuitable.

Drawing merely from your own interpretation of these examples, you should be actively working on getting as many people as possible to recognise the unjustness of the taxes you object to, and willingly going to jail for it. It seems that you aren't, but are rather trying to sneak off with as much money for yourself as possible. Despite your noble claims, your methods betray your true aims - personal gain.

You expressed approval of Reagan.

Remember the entire discussion about a good deficit versus a bad deficit ?
We could get more good deficit by raising our interest rates, but doesnt look like that's going to happen.

But you will inevitably be unsuccessful, as you are just one person. One person, keeping secret, cannot make the sort of change you wish for.

The reason those campaigns you refer to were successful was because they made it clear to the population as a whole that the laws were unjust. By trying to sneak under the tax system, you don't. If you are actually trying to make a reasonable act of civil disobedience, with the ultimate aim of changing things, your current tactics are entirely unsuitable.

Drawing merely from your own interpretation of these examples, you should be actively working on getting as many people as possible to recognise the unjustness of the taxes you object to, and willingly going to jail for it. It seems that you aren't, but are rather trying to sneak off with as much money for yourself as possible. Despite your noble claims, your methods betray your true aims - personal gain.
Do you think I will fail to call for Tax avoidance from others?

You are dogmatically reciting this slogan to the detriment of its substantive meaning. Any allocation of any kind denies some something for the benefit of others. So what?
There's a difference here between doing nothing, and having one kind of allocation, and doing something and ending up with another. There's nothing wrong with doing that something if we don't violate pareto optimality, but if we do, then simply referring to some injustice in the initial allocation is not enough if you ask me. Indeed, it may not even be enough to simply point at the new allocation be less unjust than the initial one was. The real question is: do all these things justify making someone worse off, although that person hasn't done anything to deserve it?

Yes, you can. To do so is child's play: "You are free to allocate your labor as you see fit, but you do not have the automatic right to its material consequences." As a matter of fact we make this separation routinely in market capitalism, whenever a person is employed.
We make that separation by means of a contract, which presumes that we have the right to the material consequences to start with. I'm just selling you that right. That's hardly the same as actually denying the right before any sort of negotiation or agreement occurs.

The point is that if you tax the product of my labour, then to get the product I want I have to work more than I otherwise would. That is, as a result of your tax, I have lost time and effort that I would have used for something else. Unless you can come up with some way to tax the material consequences of my labour without also reducing the time and energy I have available, your tax is equivalent in effect to taking my time and effort directly and just making me produce something.

Yes, you do. You claim jurisdiction over public, competitive matters: namely, property rights. To enforce your conception of property against someone else's is to rule over him or her: you wield force to defend not your own person, but external resources whose ownership you have merely asserted your entitlement to.
How am I enforcing something against someone else? They should be completely, 100% indifferent between my not working and not producing anything, and my working and producing something and keeping it all to myself. There is no difference as far as they are concerned! No one loses anything by my keeping my product, for all we know, they might not even be aware of its existence.

At most they'd lose some potential consumption, if you were to continuously reset the total amount of wealth in the world and take it as a given to be distributed. But really, if I'm imposing anything by denying people potential consumption that would not be possible without my work, then I still don't see the difference between denying it by consuming it myself, or denying it by not producing it in the first place. If I really have an obligation to maximising everyone's potential consumption, then it stands to reason that I have an obligation to work as much as feasible regardless of my own earthly desires, as it were.

No, it isn't. The product is inherently social. It is not possible without society.
And society is not possible without individuals. What's the point? If I step away from the production line, society is not going to make up the difference. Yes, the product of my work is a function of my product and that of others. Yes, when I engage in fair negotiation with someone else, we will end up sharing the additional product because both of us could step away. But even so, you're not proposing that I get taxed only on that additional product. You're proposing that, if whoever happens to represent society decides, I get taxed 100%. And that's where the example of a market mechanism and what you propose must break down: there is no fair negotiation with society or the government, there is no contract and there is no consideration of my point of view. I am presented with a "take it or leave it" backed up by force.

Yes, you can, and in this case we must, if we are to make sense of the fact that we produce together far more on a per capita basis than we could if we all worked alone.
It's a question of how much "far more" is. If you take the top 10% brains out of society, there would be much less left. If you remove the top 50%-1, there'd be virtually nothing left.

The point is that different people contribute to different extents. That is probably due to a combination of nature and motivation. Your system, by instead talking about society as a whole, ultimately assigns the same right to wealth and consumption to everyone, ignoring the plainly obvious difference in productivity.

No one thousands of kilometers away is going to be making specific hiring decisions for your friend's fruit shop. But the general rules of the national economy, which are inherently a matter of concern for all citizens? Yes, of course. Why not?
Because it covers my friend's fruit shop, and my friend's fruit shop is none of their business.

There are general rules which are required for the economy to function. Taxation for the purposes of redistribution is not one of them. And so imposing something on that shop to serve that end is not a valid part of coming up with society-wide rules.

(In a sense, you are missing the forest of the trees: do your specific conditions of employment affect that far-away person? Probably not in any measurable way. But do conditions of employment in general affect that person? Undoubtedly so. Why should you be exempted?)
I'm deliberately not talking about the forest, because I don't believe that it's relevant to this issue. In fact, I'm not sure such a thing as "general conditions of employment" exists and is relevant at all. That's something that every person can negotiate with someone else and which doesn't affect anyone beyond that. The sort of general principles that you do need (don't lie, don't steal, don't use violence against others, etc) aren't up for democratic vote.

Yes, you do (well, presumably), if you abstract a bit. You want him (and everybody else) to make a living within the framework of free market capitalist economic conditions, and you will happily vote to bring about such an end. You cannot avoid the decision.
I don't want that at all. I've said many times that I don't care what people do in their bedrooms, or in their communes, and that that is the primary reason for why I consider free market capitalism the only valid form of society on a macro level. Free market capitalism just happens to coincide with a world in which it is not allowed to impose anything on how others want to live their lives, including materially.

What I ask is that he doesn't come and steal the things I need to live my life the way I want it, and which I acquire without causing anyone any harm. I don't consider voting to that end particularly relevant, because again it's not something that can be properly decided upon by a majority verdict.

You remove the decision from all context. First, it is not "your" life only: your conditions of employment quite obviously have relevant effects on others.
How?

To put it in different terms: if the question is "How do we organize the economy for all of us?", why should you get any more than an equal share?
The point is that ultimately there is no need for most of these decisions to be made. There are these basic principles, and given that they offer everyone virtually infinite freedom to do as they please subject to the constraint that others do too, even if you did put them to a vote I'd find it monstrous if anyone were to vote against them.

But things like "how much taxes should I pay so X gets a certain amount of welfare money"? That's not a question for all of us at all. It's a question between me, a person that exists separately and in a certain way, and X, another person that exists separately and in a certain way. We're not making decisions with regards to the economy in general, because when we make the decision, it benefits some at the expense of others. We make a distinct value judgement in favour of those others. That's right now, in the real world, and it is what we have to base our decision on.

The question then is whether those rules of property that bind everyone ought to be determined by everyone, or instead by some elite. It seems clear to me which option is more consistent with freedom.
Look, basically without a system of property rights the like of which I propose, existing as a sovereign individual is not possible.

Firstly, if people can use whatever I need or create for my own benefit, then there is no security and no way of planning for the future. Saving is not possible in a world without my idea of property rights. Neither is investment. We can only live from one day to the next, and we're incentivised to do so because we can get by with much less effort by simply consuming what exists now rather than think about what might exist in the future. It's the classic freerider problem. And as a result, you've got all of mankind freeriding off you, and vice versa.

Secondly, the distinction between what I use, and what is my personal, private property (like my house for example), and what is public is extremely vague. I could have a huge stash of unused insulin in my bedroom that others want, and there is no reason I can see why they wouldn't be justified to go and get it. Indeed, even the idea that my bedroom is mine could be subject to a democratic vote. You're relying on the hope that no one could come up with a majority of people who are happy to live in communal bedrooms and just would eliminate privacy and personal sovereignty from society.

So given all that, I don't think the system of property rights can be legitimately decided upon by majority vote. In order to have a meaningful vote, we must first be sovereign voters rather than just cogs in some giant machine. Our opinions must matter in some way, at least to us. Without property rights, we're deprived of the ability to create our own personal environment according to our values. And without that ability, our ability to actually hold those values and actually make individual decisions is compromised.

Government spending on social programs and the like is pretty clearly demanded by the public.
According to what? Elections aren't run along the lines of "let's choose between this social program and no social program". I could live with that slightly better: democracy without parliaments and leaders that are allowed to implement independent opinions. Just plesbicites.

But in practice we vote "Obama v McCain". Or at best "Democrats v Republicans". That is a huge number of (occasionally conflicting and rarely clearly expressed) views and stances on the entire spectrum of issues. Fact of the matter is that the outcome this sort of democracy produced is unlikely to be the outcome that a large number of people actually want. Virtually everyone only properly agrees with their democratic government on one or two issues at most. The outcome of compromise is a situation in which no one gets what they want completely, and many people don't get anything they want.

In a world where people disagree, they need at least the legitimation of public authority: otherwise we are left with "might makes right."
I don't see the difference. If there is just you and me, and I use force to make you wear pink against your will, that's wrong. But if there's a third person who agrees with me and then the both of you force you to wear pink, then that has the legitimation of public authority and it's any less wrong? You're still ignoring issues of right and wrong and just appealing to some other authority while proceeding to condone the violent enforcement of some opinion on others.

Practically speaking, coercion is generally involved in the enforcement of the decisions of such public authorities, because neither moral perfection nor recognition of civic duty to the law are universal in human societies.
Obviously. But there is a difference between the enforced protection of people's labour's products against others, which is my idea of property rights, and the enforced use of the product of people's labour for the benefit of others, which is what redistribution comes down to. In one case no one is caused any pain by the policy, in the other I suffer because of it.

Obviously. But there is a difference between the enforced protection of people's labour's products against others, which is my idea of property rights, and the enforced use of the product of people's labour for the benefit of others, which is what redistribution comes down to. In one case no one is caused any pain by the policy, in the other I suffer because of it.

Enforcing property rights of others through taxation is using the product of people's labor products for the benefits of others. A minarchist state where the only positive right is the right to have one's negative rights enforced is a state that redistributes resources.

All right, first of all, my apologies for not returning when I said I would. I am here now, though. I hope everyone had a happy Easter (or, if you don't celebrate it, a happy weekend, in general). If someone could provide a brief recap of what I missed, I would appreciate it. :)

Immoral? Hell, it's legal.

Unless anyone can show me the law requiring anyone (in the US) to pay income tax. And no, it's not the 16th Amendment. SCOTUS, in 1918, ruled that taxes must be apportioned (the US Income Tax is not) if direct, or indirect (and therefore avoidable, such as tobacco, liquor or gas taxes).

Immoral? Hell, it's legal.

Unless anyone can show me the law requiring anyone (in the US) to pay income tax. And no, it's not the 16th Amendment. SCOTUS, in 1918, ruled that taxes must be apportioned (the US Income Tax is not) if direct, or indirect (and therefore avoidable, such as tobacco, liquor or gas taxes).

um....ok. 26 U.S.C. § 1,

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual. . .

Immoral? Hell, it's legal.

Unless anyone can show me the law requiring anyone (in the US) to pay income tax. And no, it's not the 16th Amendment. SCOTUS, in 1918, ruled that taxes must be apportioned (the US Income Tax is not) if direct, or indirect (and therefore avoidable, such as tobacco, liquor or gas taxes).

Even I do not make such claims.

Immoral? Hell, it's legal.

Unless anyone can show me the law requiring anyone (in the US) to pay income tax. And no, it's not the 16th Amendment. SCOTUS, in 1918, ruled that taxes must be apportioned (the US Income Tax is not) if direct, or indirect (and therefore avoidable, such as tobacco, liquor or gas taxes).

I would advise you to seek help from a person who knows what they are talking about.

You can't avoid paying taxes on income that is taxable and still be "cool" with the IRS.

I would advise you to seek help from a person who knows what they are talking about.

You can't avoid paying taxes on income that is taxable and still be "cool" with the IRS.

At that point it isn't the IRS so much as the FBI that's your problem.

Immoral? Hell, it's legal.

Unless anyone can show me the law requiring anyone (in the US) to pay income tax. And no, it's not the 16th Amendment. SCOTUS, in 1918, ruled that taxes must be apportioned (the US Income Tax is not) if direct, or indirect (and therefore avoidable, such as tobacco, liquor or gas taxes).
you mean the tax code doesnt cover the requirement to pay your income taxes? the law establishing the income tax doesnt cover the requirment to pay income taxes?

And please, I hope to hell he's not making the old, tired, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. argument. It takes a special kind of logic to argue that the Supreme Court has held income tax illegal, based on dicta from a centuries old case, take out of its proper context, even in the face of the supreme court itself saying, multiple times, "no, we did not". Indeed, to quote:

Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, it is immaterial with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or indirect tax. The whole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from [the requirement of] apportionment and from [the requirement of] a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.

and if that were not directly enough on point, a direct refutation of the argument, from the mouths of the modern court:

[W]e have rejected, on numerous occasions, the tax-protester argument that the federal income tax is an unconstitutional direct tax that must be apportioned. See, e.g., Lively v. Commissioner, 705 F.2d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam)

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1193 (1994).

you mean the tax code doesnt cover the requirement to pay your income taxes? the law establishing the income tax doesnt cover the requirment to pay income taxes?

Generally if there are penalties for not doing something that means doing that something is required.

Generally if there are penalties for not doing something that means doing that something is required.
thats what im thinking so it must be that i made a big mistake just looking at the last page of the thread to see if anything interesting had come up. i must have missed that intangelon was making a joke.

thats what im thinking so it must be that i made a big mistake just looking at the last page of the thread to see if anything interesting had come up. i must have missed that intangelon was making a joke.

Apparently not. He is on the news right now getting arrested for tax evasion.

Apparently not. He is on the news right now getting arrested for tax evasion.
lol

must be under the bush doctrine of pre-emptive action since "tax day" hasnt arrived yet.

lol

must be under the bush doctrine of pre-emptive action since "tax day" hasnt arrived yet.

been avoiding for the better part of a decade it says.

been avoiding for the better part of a decade it says.
yeah. 8 years! bush all the way!

I would advise you to seek help from a person who knows what they are talking about.

You can't avoid paying taxes on income that is taxable and still be "cool" with the IRS.

No one is ever "cool" with the IRS. Everyone is guilty of tax evasion really from their standpoint. Why else would they have random audits.

No one is ever "cool" with the IRS. Everyone is guilty of tax evasion really from their standpoint. Why else would they have random audits.

Gives the auditors something to do. I'm on the "wrong" side of an audit nearly daily because of my job....seriously, they aren't that bad if you aren't fucking around with your numbers and even when you are, they aren't that bad.

Gives the auditors something to do. I'm on the "wrong" side of an audit nearly daily because of my job....seriously, they aren't that bad if you aren't fucking around with your numbers and even when you are, they aren't that bad.

Depends really I guess who you get. I was audited twice. Once by a decent guy and the other time I got the wicked witch from the west. The biggest bitch ever. She made the whole process 3 times as worse as her previous co-worker.

Depends really I guess who you get. I was audited twice. Once by a decent guy and the other time I got the wicked witch from the west. The biggest bitch ever. She made the whole process 3 times as worse as her previous co-worker.

Why were you dealing with them anyway, hire someone like me to talk to them, then you don't have to worry about it. :p

Why were you dealing with them anyway, hire someone like me to talk to them, then you don't have to worry about it. :p

I thought I was being smart. After the first guy i figured it wasn't so bad. I was proven wrong. I do have "people" now. Later in life I took the route of hiring people that specialize in a particular field to do the work instead of me. I found out the hard way it's much cheaper to hire someone than me screw it up and costing me more. I just stick with what I'm good at now days. ;)

yeah. 8 years! bush all the way!

Yeah he claims it was a protest against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

And please, I hope to hell he's not making the old, tired, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. argument. It takes a special kind of logic to argue that the Supreme Court has held income tax illegal, based on dicta from a centuries old case, take out of its proper context, even in the face of the supreme court itself saying, multiple times, "no, we did not".

Who cares what the Supreme Court says?

there are exactly two ways that are not cheating people worse off then youself to avoid taxes. either by staying poor enough to remain below the poverty line, or by declaring no deductions on withholding and all of them on your return so that, even though, woopie, unkle suger gets to spend the liddle bit of extra intrest, the main thing is you don't have to worry about owing them, and instead can just about count on getting some back.

but i mean, if someone can afford five houses and a fleet of yachts, they can damd well afford to render unto ceaser that which is ceaser's.

Enforcing property rights of others through taxation is using the product of people's labor products for the benefits of others. A minarchist state where the only positive right is the right to have one's negative rights enforced is a state that redistributes resources.
Indeed, but purely accidental. The ideal mechanism would obviously be to have everyone pay for his own property's protection. But I foresee practical issues relating to the implementation of that.

Where it is possible to eliminate redistribution/freerider problems, I propose to do so. But there is that small section of things where, with the practical limitations being what they are this point, the best we can do is to minimise the bad stuff rather than eliminate it completely. The only alternative is anarchism proper, and I myself think Mogadishu serves as an example of what that would look like beyond the idealism.

Indeed, but purely accidental. The ideal mechanism would obviously be to have everyone pay for his own property's protection. But I foresee practical issues relating to the implementation of that.

Where it is possible to eliminate redistribution/freerider problems, I propose to do so. But there is that small section of things where, with the practical limitations being what they are this point, the best we can do is to minimise the bad stuff rather than eliminate it completely. The only alternative is anarchism proper, and I myself think Mogadishu serves as an example of what that would look like beyond the idealism.

I dunno, some ways to minimize redistribution include not enforcing property rights of those who haven't paid a certain amount of taxes, based on some formula estimating the costs of enforcing their rights, and taking the organs that are not strictly necessary to survive, like one lung and a kidney, sell them at market value and all profits would go to the tax bill. Would you be willing to impose such measures or similar ones to minimize redistribution?

A lot of "redistribution" is not really that redistributive in nature. Subsidies towards those with children, including publically funded parental leave, subsidized childcare, school, child allowances ect, could be seen as compensation for some of the benefits the production of humans provide that parents can't ordinarily capture in the current economy. Then there are benefits tied to earnings like much of social insurance. Redistribution largely not between people so much as between the same person at different points of their life.