Sure, but before I do, do you agree that taxation is essentially taking people's things at gunpoint?

If we can't agree on that, there's no point in discussing an alternative because you don't seem persuaded that there is any necessity for an alternative. — Tzeentch

Why do you see taxes as "your" thing? When you get paid, you get paid after tax is drawn. The sum of the tax is not yours because you haven't actually owned it. If the state increases your tax, they aren't "taking your things", they are increasing the sum of the cash flow in the nation's economy. They are increasing the sum that the company pays to the state when paying you for your work. The company can deduct that from its own income tax of production. The company can, if they want, increase your salary so that the increase in taxes doesn't change your actual income from before.

What things does the state take at gunpoint? You are creating a loaded question that is ridiculous in the first place. You can absolutely leave the place that collectively agreed upon a system that generates a cash flow to help stabilize society and generate equality. You are not forced to live in this agreement and are able to move somewhere where this does not exist. But instead, you phrase it as being theft at gunpoint.

Your entire life you have reaped the rewards of this type of society, the amount of value that you have gotten out of tax funding helped you get to where you are today, and now you view it as theft at gunpoint? Is this not a very naive way of looking at large-scale economies?

So no, I don't agree that it is "taking people's things at gunpoint" because that is a fundamentally wrong way of describing the economic system of taxation. It's you looking at the sum before tax and claiming, "That should have been mine!"

Let me ask you this. If you were denied services that were funded by taxation while you were growing up, then the police would force the ones conducting these services to do them against their will and they would be forced at gunpoint if needed (in the same kind of situation you paint), because it is your right in a taxed economy to receive this service. So, essentially, you could rephrase your whole idea to force people to give you services at gunpoint, because otherwise, you don't get anything for the taxes that you or your parents pay, or rather, that is drawn from the company that pays you or your parents. Now, what things are being taken here, and by whom?

Is communism realistic/feasible? — jorndoe

I voted yes, but I have no idea how it could be achieved. To the extent that I'm optimistic and believe that freedom is possible, I believe that communism is possible, because freedom is possible only in a society of abundance in which individuals are not under pressure of poverty, are not exploited or dominated, are not merely used as means to the ends of others, and are not treated merely as representatives of a class, race, or other kind of group.

Notice that according to this description of communism, it is not anti-individual. The needs of society and the needs of the individual are reciprocally linked, at least in my conception and the conception of Marx.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. — The Communist Manifesto

As I say ("I have no idea how it could be achieved"), this is Utopian. However, if we look at the variety of the forms of society in which people have lived, I do not see any great impediment to communism in principle, i.e., according to human nature. I could be wrong about that. If I am, human emancipation is impossible.

I voted yes. I don't believe human nature is fixed, and I don't believe human beings are bound by necessity such that a "system" is in place to make them behave this or that way.

The future is open. And we can demand the impossible. — Moliere

:up:

On the other hand, I am still unsure about how to approach the concept of human nature. Is the claim that human nature is not fixed the same as the claim that there is no human nature at all? Is it enough to say tempting things such as, "if there is a human nature, it is in its endless flexibility," and so on?

But I actually do think it's crucial: what distinguishes us from (other) animals is history, the fact that the future is open. So we could say that the openness of the human future is human nature.

On the other hand (how many is that now?) that is rather vague. Maybe that's as it should be?

Is the claim that human nature is not fixed the same as the claim that there is no human nature at all? — Jamal

For myself, no. If pressed I'll say human nature leans bad, but contingently so. For one, it's not always easy to determine what is good, so there will be bad from ignorance, and for two, the societies that have tended to survive so far are intentionally built upon selfish desires which tends to make people, unsurprisingly, act more selfishly.

I'm a little doubtful of endless flexibility, but surely the evolutionary picture points out how we're not fixed biologically speaking. And the diversity of cultures shows that we're not fixed culturally speaking either. I think of it as loose constraints and tendencies, some of which are pretty heavily embedded.

But, hey, the Kings don't rule the world anymore either.

So no, I don't agree that it is "taking people's things at gunpoint"... — Christoffer

So asking me to describe my alternative was pointless at best (and dishonest at worst). :up:

Your entire life you have reaped the rewards of this type of society, — Christoffer

You can absolutely leave the place that collectively agreed upon a system that generates a cash flow to help stabilize society and generate equality. — Christoffer

These are non-arguments.

If you don't like capitalism, why don't you just leave? You've lived your whole life reaping the benefits of a capitalist society, etc. etc.

If you don't like America's gun laws, why not just leave? Etc.

Not worth responding to.


The rest of your argument seems to hinge on the idea that the state owns the individual and their labor, and that only by the extraordinary grace bestowed by the state the individual is allowed to have property. A rather archaic image of what the relation between citizens and states should look like.

It's a bit ironic to think how much this view of the state resembles the idea of the worst kinds of capitalism, with 'trickle-down' and all, only this time it also holds a monopoly on violence.


Let's also not forget what taxation makes us complicit in - wars, corruption, failed government projects (the lists of which are truly endless), etc.

Would a Russian be within their moral right to refuse to pay taxes, because they don't wish to support the war in Ukraine?

I would say so. And you would say no.

I think of it as loose constraints and tendencies, some of which are pretty heavily embedded. — Moliere

Yeah, I guess that's how I think about it too.

So asking me to describe my alternative was pointless at best (and dishonest at worst). — Tzeentch

So you refuse to provide any kind of description of the society that you argue for? How convenient.

These are non-arguments. — Tzeentch

The same as just summarizing tax as "theft at gunpoint", which is just a loaded statement and a naive idea disregarding the very function of tax, and on top of that saying that you won't bother engaging in any explanation of your viewpoint or view of society if the one you are discussing with isn't first agreeing with your point of view. I would say those are even less valid arguments than what I provided.

Not worth responding to. — Tzeentch

So how would you rate your own arguments in this regard?

The rest of your argument seems to hinge on the idea that the state owns the individual and their labor, and that only by the extraordinary grace bestowed by the state the individual is allowed to have property. — Tzeentch

Really? I seem to explain taxes as a cash flow that keeps society healthy by creating equality and providing services to the people. In other words, you need to explain how the state owns this and not the people as a group. Isn't the tax money flowing back and forth between people in society? Compare that to the private banks that actually take money through interest while giving back just a minor fraction for having your money in the bank. What does the "state" actually own in terms of taxes?

Let's also not forget what taxation makes us complicit in - wars, corruption, failed government projects (the lists of which are truly endless), etc. — Tzeentch

What doesn't? Do you think that taxes are the be-all and end-all relation to those things? Do you think the free market, even outside of any taxing system, is innocent of supporting those things? What do you think is driving wars, corruption etc. most? Taxes or capitalism?
But if you have actually read what I wrote about taxes you would realize that the discussion that should be held about taxes is not about the existence of taxes or how high or low, but how they are handled, if they are misused or flowing into corruption. You are deliberately ignoring my points in order to try and paint taxes as bad because of whatever guilt-by-association fallacy you want to make of it.

I'm talking about taxes as a system, a function. You cannot use corruption and mishandling of tax money as an argument against taxes because that has to do with the quality of the state, not taxes as a system. You are presenting an argument against taxes by talking about a state that is bad at handling taxes, which is not the same as taxes as an economic system, and this is the point I'm making, you are arguing against taxes by reasoning about failed state systems. A failed system can act as thieves having people at gunpoint, but that is not what taxes as a system is, that is whatever failed system you live in. Here, in Scandinavia, I don't think many would agree we feel robbed by the state at gunpoint and we have among the highest rates of tax in the world. Because we have a system that for the most part works, most of us wouldn't dream of lowering taxes or living in a society without them.

So, you can't use your experience of a nation with a corrupt and shitty economy and state as an argument against taxation as a form of economic system.

Would a Russian be within their moral right to refuse to pay taxes, because they don't wish to support the war in Ukraine?

I would say so. And you would say no. — Tzeentch

Another loaded question that focuses on a failed state and not the actual system. You simply don't seem to understand that taxes as a system have nothing to do with the quality of the state.

It's kind of hand-wavey, I'll admit. A loose notion of human nature to explain patterns, but I don't think we must be this or that way. The actual limits of social organization with respect to human nature are unknown, I'd say. which is why I think "feasibility" isn't the right way to look at it -- the right way is to look to one another, because that's how social organisms change is through collective action (rather than theorizing about plausible futures). Especially if we're interested in a realistic communism, or some other system that fulfills the good parts of that idea.

So you refuse to provide any kind of description of the society that you argue for? — Christoffer

Of course. There's no point in wasting time describing an alternative if you're completely sold on the idea of taxation. Pearls before swine, as they say.

The same as just summarizing tax as "theft at gunpoint", which is just a loaded statement and a naive idea disregarding the very function of tax, ... — Christoffer

It's not really a loaded statement. It's simply a true statement that taxation is predicated on threats of violence, and I would argue therefore little more than an elaborate method of theft.

So how would you rate your own arguments in this regard? — Christoffer

Not only would I consider my arguments worth responding to, I would consider them essentially mandatory to deal with for anyone who wishes to coherently make an argument for why taxation is ok.

I seem to explain taxes as a cash flow that keeps society healthy by creating equality and providing services to the people. — Christoffer

That sounds fantastic. It would almost make one wonder why anyone would have to be threatened with violence in order to pay up? Or perhaps it's not as rosy as you sketch it.

You cannot use corruption and mishandling of tax money as an argument against taxes because that has to do with the quality of the state, not taxes as a system. — Christoffer

I disagree. Since taxation enables all kinds of misbehavior by states, which pretty much all states are guilty of one way or another, I think they go hand in hand, and it's essentially impossible to view them seperately.

In a perfect world where a state uses taxation only to do good things, again, why would anyone need to be convinced by threats of violence to pay up?

So, you can't use your experience of a nation with a corrupt and shitty economy and state as an argument against taxation as a form of economic system. — Christoffer

This sums up pretty much every nation, so I certainly can.

Another loaded question that focuses on a failed state and not the actual system. — Christoffer

I could ask you the same question about the United States, or any of its European dependencies, or any state in the world.

Is an American tax payer justified to refuse to pay taxes when that tax money is directly being used to bomb people in third world countries?

Am I justified to refuse to pay taxes when the Dutch government is utterly incompetent and demonstrably responsible for destroying innocent citizens' lives?

Or are these all "failed states" too?

Now we're getting to the meaty bits.

Describe a society without taxes, in which you don't have to worry about spending your life behind bars because of not paying taxes. You are now free, how do you live in this society? You are born into the world having $100 000 as a starting sum when moving from home, how does that life look like? — Christoffer

For starters, where did you get the money? Who prints the currency? Who regulates the exchange value?

Why is taxation the hot topic here? — Jamal

I think the problem was individual contribution. No society works without its members contributing an effort toward its preservation and welfare. In a money-based economy, all exchanges are valuated and transacted by way of currency. So, whether the means of production is owned by individuals, corporations, the crown or some other form of government, the citizens are required to pay their share ax taxation and military service.

In a communist society there would be no state, no money, no social classes--and no taxation.

That depends on the form of communal organization. In the purest form, money and taxation would not be required - but only if that commune were entirely self-sufficient and didn't need to trade with non-communist social entities.
Social classes are superfluous - in fact, have always been a hindrance to good social order. And it doesn't matter whether you call the social unit a state, country, nation, community or tribe - it has finite limits and occupies a defined territory.

But there would certainly be governance and administration; there would, indeed, have to be some
organizing for allocation of resources, planning energy production and infrastructure projects, sharing out and pooling work for the commonweal, providing for care of the very young and the infirm, storing up reserves, preparing for response to an emergency. Even if the group is only an extended family, or small like-minded group one or two responsible adults are usually in charge. It doesn't need to the be same ones for every function; they don't need to give orders or wear titles. There is no hard line on how the leadership in any particular circumstance is selected or who is eligible to serve on the steering committee or what the designated responsibilities of each elder may be.

I voted no, because I believe we do have certain tendencies that tend to certain outcomes.These are not necessarily hard limits to how we can organize, but rather practical concerns that steer organisations over time in certain directions (Oligarchy). The problem isn't necessarily that you can never overcome those tendencies some of the time, but that you can't overcome them sustainably.

In the Iron law of oligarchy, Michels for instance describes step by step how the unions he was part of gradually became stratified and hierarchical over time, because of the simple reason that at some point you need specialists, because everybody doing every job all the time just doesn't make much practical sense (people can't be bothered basically).

Because of specialization you inevitably get differentiation in power (some become representatives, or leaders eventually, for instance), and then those specialists tend to group up with like-minded people, to eventually consolidate their power-advantage over the rest (because they have better access to decision-making processes, and therefor can make rules that benefit them more, get more money, resources and power etc etc...).

Ultimately these oligarchs do seem to always take it to far however, at which point you get revolutions because of to much inequality... and all of it can start over again basically.

All of this seems pretty human, and actually seems to describe a process that we have seen over and over again in history. I think good political philosophy should start from description.

All of this seems pretty human, and actually seems to describe a process that we have seen over and over again in history. — ChatteringMonkey

The key word there is "history". We may need to look farther back for sustainable systems of human organization. And even when we've found a model that could work for us, we'd still have to find its vulnerabilities and insure against the identifiable threats. And, having done all that, prepare to change whatever needs changing in response to new developments and circumstances.

The problem is semantics. We already live in a society. By nature it is a commune and we share and help one another. Problem is, people like the idea of not having to pull their own weight, at the very least, when absolutely necessary. The real problem is, when you get right down to it, you could be the last or first and only person on a planet... you still have to work. There's no getting around that. Newton's laws of physics. Unless you befriend a benevolent deity, you're going to have to cultivate crop, build and maintain shelter, and unless you're some sort of robot provide a continual and dynamic source of entertainment and leisure. These things aren't going to do it themselves. So who does it? "Somebody else" is the go-to answer which is what was responsible for wars, slavery, and suffering unfathomable due to the codification of the simple fact, if you don't work, you will die.

Back in the days of Ancient Israel, you were married by 12, a seasoned combat veteran by 20, a grandfather by 30, and dead by 40. No one complained. You know not always but that was a typical pattern.

The mainstay about capitalism is, after taxes, its all your money. You can spend it on blow and hookers or donate whatever you don't need to not starve to death and keep a roof over your head to charity or random people or causes if you so choose. People like choice. It's a very powerful dynamic in modern society.

The key word there is "history". We may need to look farther back for sustainable systems of human organization. And even when we've found a model that could work for us, we'd still have to find its vulnerabilities and insure against the identifiable threats. And, having done all that, prepare to change whatever needs changing in response to new developments and circumstances. — Vera Mont

The farther back one goes, the less relevant human organisations become for present times it seems to me... There were a lot less people and a lot more space and resources to go around. There's also the practical problem that we can't really know what came before written history.

What I would agree to is that we are heading for truly unprecedented times in a lot of aspects... so maybe none of history will remain all that relevant shortly.

What I will agree to that we are heading for truly unprecedented times in a lot of aspects... — ChatteringMonkey

You realize literally every person, intelligent and not, said this exact same thing, in complete sincerity and absolute truth, since the beginning of language. Correct?

Man discovers fire. Same thing. Man discovers cooking. Same thing. Man discovers ChatGPT. Same thing.. there truly is nothing new under the sun.

You realize literally every person, intelligent and not, said this exact thing, in personal sincerity and absolute truth, since the beginning of language. Correct? — Outlander

Maybe they said that, but they were wrong :-).

I have actual reasons that are more that just "I feel special". I could elaborate, but this isn't really the thread for it I think.

EDIT:

Man discovers fire. Same thing. Man discovers cooking. Same thing. Man discovers ChatGPT. Same thing.. there truly is nothing new under the sun. — Outlander

For much of history progress was very slow, and general energy consumption and economic growth modest. Since the industrial revolution, and exploitation of fossil fuels, this has accelerated exponentially. Now we are nearing the end of that exponential growth, with climate change fundamentally altering the climate we developed our civilizations in, fossil fuels that need to be phased out and populations stagnating. That, combined with unprecedented scientific knowledge and technology makes for I would say unprecedented times.

Of course. There's no point in wasting time describing an alternative if you're completely sold on the idea of taxation. Pearls before swine, as they say. — Tzeentch

No, you are avoiding providing a description of an alternative system. You demand others to provide info, explanations, and ideas, but you refuse to do the same if people do not already agree with you on the point you are trying to argue, it is dishonest and garbage.

It's not really a loaded statement. It's simply a true statement that taxation is predicated on threats of violence, and therefore little more than an elaborate method of theft. — Tzeentch

It's not a true statement because it doesn't relate to the system or function on its own, it only refers to whatever failed state system you live in. Your experience of your state system and its way of handling taxes is not universal, therefore you cannot claim any truth like you try to do. You are using your own anecdotal evidence to argue against an economic system that in itself doesn't equal what you say.

Not only would I consider my arguments worth responding to, I would consider them essentially mandatory to deal with for anyone who wishes to coherently make an argument for why taxation is ok — Tzeentch

Are you for real? :rofl:

That sounds fantastic. It would almost make one wonder why anyone would have to be threatened with violence in order to pay up? Or perhaps it's not as rosy as you sketch it. — Tzeentch

Or perhaps the nation you live in is shit and mine isn't. The problem is that you evaluate a basic economic system with the measurement of the quality of the state. Or maybe you just believe that whatever system you live in is universal.

I disagree. Since taxation enables all kinds of misbehavior by states, which pretty much all states are guilty of one way or another, I think they go hand in hand, and it's essentially impossible to view them seperately. — Tzeentch

No, they don't go hand in hand. That is what you apply to it. You invent this connection, but if you look at taxes as an economic system, there's nothing in it that includes corruption and misbehavior as an absolute consequential fact of that system. Once again you fail to understand the simple fact that the quality of the state and society does not equal a universal truth for the economic system of taxes. Your idea that "all states are guilty" is not evidence for taxes being part of that failure, you are doing a simple correlation is not causation fallacy trying to link them together without any kind of actual correlation being true. A failed state system does not mean taxation as an economic system is a failure. You are creating patterns and links where there are none and don't seem to understand basic economic theory.

It is only impossible for you to view them separately because that is a bias that you project, you fail to create an argument that is deductively rational and instead just claim this because you emotionally feel it's true. Which, philosophically, is a garbage argument.

In a perfect world where a state uses taxation only to do good things, again, why would anyone need to be convinced by threats of violence to pay up? — Tzeentch

It doesn't have to be perfect, I live in Scandinavia where the vast majority happily pay our taxes because we understand the benefits that we reap from it. We also have low corruption and low misuse of these funds.

You are still arguing for improving the handling of taxes and lowering corruption, just like I do, but you fail to understand that such a position has nothing to do with the economic system of taxes in itself. You are applying blame on taxes for problems that require other solutions than removing taxes. You won't get rid of corruption and misuse of means by removing taxes, you understand that right? A society with corruption and misuse of means will be a shitty society regardless of the existence of taxes.

This sums up pretty much every nation, so I certainly can. — Tzeentch

Because of what? Because you say so? How was it again? Your arguments are worth responding to? They are great arguments? This is your argument, you say something, therefore it is true? :rofl:
You seem to know very little about the world outside of your own nation, that's for sure.

I could ask you the same question about the United States, or any of its European dependencies, or any state in the world. — Tzeentch

Ok, do so with Sweden.

Is an American tax payer justified to refuse to pay taxes when that tax money is directly being used to bomb people in third world countries? — Tzeentch

Is it? Maybe it directly helps people get access to schools and education. Maybe it helps some kids get through treatment for a sickness that would otherwise kill them. Saying that it is "directly used to bomb people in third world countries" is not accurate because that's not how taxes work, they're pooled into a big pile and you cannot conclude such a statement about what it directly pays for. You do that to once again create a loaded question, to apply some kind of absolute guilt on the system of taxes. And then there's the fact that I don't give a shit about the US, it is pretty much a failed state system with a lot of corruption. You are using such a failed system as an argument against taxes once again, and once again being unable to understand that an economic system is not the same as a failed system misusing it. If you are unable to understand this simple fact, then you are unable to see through the biases and fallacies that you keep producing in an attempt to desperately connect two things that don't have causation between them.

Am I justified to refuse to pay taxes when the Dutch government is utterly incompentent and demonstrably responsible for destroying people's lives? — Tzeentch

Once again, you talk about a failed government or system, it has nothing to do with taxation as an economic system. If you were able to install a government that didn't do that but kept the tax system, what then? Would taxes be equally bad in your opinion? How so?

Or are these all "failed states"? — Tzeentch

Your experience of your state is not an argument against taxation.

Explain to me, what is taxes? Please provide a factual explanation of this economic system. In your explanation of the taxing system, is it a factual description that it "helps to finance corrupt politicians and has a primary use in misguided ways to kill people in third world nations"? Is this your description of this economic system?

If so, provide a link to any economic theory anywhere, that explains that this is the primary function of the taxation system or has anything to do with it. If not, then it's not the factual truth you seem to believe.

Taxation is a system, failed usage of that system is not equal to the system itself. If you can't understand it, try making a deductive argument out of it and see if it becomes logical. If you can't, stop saying it's any kind of truth.

For starters, where did you get the money? Who prints the currency? Who regulates the exchange value? — Vera Mont

Not really relevant to the thought experiment, it could be the result of accumulated wealth in your family, which drives the point further, some are lucky, some aren't. And then you could drive the argument that some made money on the backs of the poor long ago and that money came from there, which makes it even more clear that without a system to push for equality, inequality will rage rampage.

Sure, but before I do, do you agree that taxation is essentially taking people's things at gunpoint? — Tzeentch

No. That melodramatic representation of taxes is both inaccurate and unacceptable. People's things aren't taken; only a predetermined and agreed-upon portion of the money which was issued and guaranteed by a government agency, and which they receive in return for some function they perform that is of value to somebody who is in possession of those funds.

People don't get their things out of thin air; they buy things, at will, with the money they've received (earned or otherwise) from other people, in consensual transactions and the full knowledge that part of the price will be paid to the government in the form of sales tax or tariff or surcharge. We are fully cognizant of these conditions when we sign a contract, accept a job offer or make a purchase. We are fully cognizant of them when we cast a vote for a representative, or take an oath of citizenship.

We are also informed, somewhere along the way, that refusing to pay taxes, or cheating on the amount, are punishable crimes, exactly like taking other people's money and things at gun-point. And that is why most of us willingly pay taxes to buy the guns and police hours to protect our things from our fellow citizens with guns.

The farther back one goes, the less relevant human organisations become for present times it seems to me... There were a lot less people and a lot more space and resources to go around. — ChatteringMonkey

It will be relevant again. See my first post on this topic. I always differentiated between ideology "ism" and a communal system of organization.

No, you are avoiding providing a description of an alternative system. — Christoffer

Yes, of course. Because I don't see the point in providing one to you. I'm not making a secret of that fact, so I don't think I'm being dishonest.

Ok, do so with Sweden. — Christoffer

Sweden, like every European nation, enables the United States' misbehavior by outsourcing its national defense to the United States. That makes every European nation complicit in the United States' misbehavior, and also makes it complicit in, for example, poverty in the United States. European nations have a social system because the United States pays for their defense.

Also, didn't I recall you calling Sweden a capitalist "slave system"?

And then there's the fact that I don't give a shit about the US, it is pretty much a failed state system with a lot of corruption. — Christoffer

And yet you see no problem in piggybacking off it to avoid having to pay for national defense?

How odd.


Anyway,


When a government conducts immoral behavior, like waging war on other countries, destroying the lives of its citizens, etc. am I justified in refusing to pay taxes?

This is of course a key question.

Taxation is a system, failed usage of that system is not equal to the system itself. — Christoffer

Taxation by its very definition is taking part of the value of a person's labour under threat of violence.

I view coercion as something that is inherently immoral, and thus a system that is predicated on it as inherently flawed, regardless of how it's used.

The fact that taxation is exclusively used by imperfect entities known as states further compounds my problems with it.


Essentially your line of reasoning reminds me of someone who tries to justify a war while refusing to concede that killing people is immoral.

There are operating communes all over the world; all different, mostly functional. So, of course it's feasible. In fact, it's the most reasonable and efficient form of human organization. Unfortunately, it only works on a small scale. And since these communities are surrounded by oceans of dysfunctional monetary society, they have a high rate of death by drowning. — Vera Mont

It will be relevant again. See my first post on this topic. I always differentiated between ideology "ism" and a communal system of organization. — Vera Mont

Are you suggesting a whole lot of people will die? Or at least our dysfunctional global monetary system will die, which probably also implies a lot of people dying.

Because that's the only way i see it really becoming relevant again. Global geo-politics won't go away on its own otherwise, and so communal systems of organization will continue to be drowned out.

It’s either/or, collectivism or individualism. There is no middle ground.

I’m not saying you’re guilty of anything, either. I’m just showing you’re not writing anything new or nuanced, that you are making the same arguments that they have, and in so doing have revealed which side of the fence you have taken. The fact that that side of the fence is a veritable rogue’s gallery of evil, tyranny, and mass murder is not my fault. You’ve blamed individualism for the same things they have. You hold the same ideas.

Your description of the parts of individualism you like as “humanism” reveals only how badly you wish to avoid being associated with the label “individualism”. It does not indicate which political unit you believe exists, let alone which political unit you think ought to have rights or ought to be paramount in its relation to power and the state.

No. That melodramatic representation of taxes is both inaccurate and unacceptable. People's things aren't taken; only a predetermined and agreed-upon portion of the money which was issued and guaranteed by a government agency, and which they receive in return for some function they perform that is of value to somebody who is in possession of those funds.

Yes they are taken. You agree to a wage with an employer; the government takes a portion of your income. Neither you nor your employer determine how much is taken. This occurs involuntarily, whether you agree with it or not.

Yes, of course. Because I don't see the point in providing one to you. I'm not making a secret of that fact, so I don't think I'm being dishonest. — Tzeentch

It makes you a dishonest interlocutor and pretty childish to demand people to agree with you before you explain your argument on a philosophical forum. You demand us with this...

Not only would I consider my arguments worth responding to, I would consider them essentially mandatory — Tzeentch

If you won't explain yourself you cannot demand us to view your arguments as anything other than garbage. This is just low quality.

Sweden, like every European nation, enables the United States' misbehavior by outsourcing its national defense to the United States. That makes every European nation complicit in the United States' misbehavior, and also makes it complicit in, for example, poverty in the United States. European nations have a social system because the United States pays for their defense. — Tzeentch

What the hell does this have to do with taxes being an economic system? You don't even seem to understand what page this discussion is on, have you confused this thread with another?

Also, didn't I recall you calling Sweden a capitalist "slave system"? — Tzeentch

I called modern society a slave system in the sense of how capitalism and materialism in the modern world create a simulacrum of meaning in which people believe to be free, but essentially are cogs.

Still doesn't change the fact that Sweden, in comparison to many other nations, has very high taxes, low corruption, and is pretty much up there at the top with other similar state systems that are considered the best places to live. Oh, we are also historically known for pouring our tax money into helping poor nations. A good example of a functioning tax system, not perfect, but functioning on a level where your arguments make absolutely no sense in reality.

And yet you see no problem in piggybacking off it to avoid having to pay for national defense?

How odd. — Tzeentch

You think we're not funding our national defense? What the hell are you talking about?
And once again, why are you arguing this nonsense when we're talking about taxes as an economic system? You just come off as fundamentally confused as to what this discussion is about.

When a government conducts immoral behavior, like waging war on other countries, destroying the lives of its citizens, etc. am I justified in refusing to pay taxes?

This is of course a key question. — Tzeentch

Still has nothing to do with taxation as an economic system. Why do you have such a problem understanding this? It's no key question, you are just confused.

Taxation by its very definition is taking part of the value of a person's labour under threat of violence. — Tzeentch

No, it doesn't, find that definition please, that includes "violence". I'm still waiting for you to provide any support for your wild interpretations.

And, you forget that you are taking part in the value of services in your society, services paid for by taxes. If you don't want to pay taxes, you should not be allowed any services that those taxes are paying for. It's pretty simple. Oh, and you cannot buy many of the goods and services either since many get subsidies that lower their costs, which means you cannot get them or need to pay a price equal to the full cost.

I bet that you could actually drive a petition to be excluded from the taxing system if you also agree to remove yourself from any kind of service and economic help in society.

Let me ask you, how do you get to work? How do you conduct your day-to-day labor? Because you cannot use roads either, they're funded by taxes. So, I would say that you can actually definitely exclude yourself from paying taxes by simply stopping working and doing labor that helps you instead. You could probably buy land and a house and just provide your own food. Of course, you cannot get any medical help since those are tax-funded and you won't have any money to pay for the full sum.

In the end, this is what my question was for you, what society do you see when taxes don't exist anymore? Because people can absolutely protest the state by not paying taxes, it just requires you to rid yourself of all services and help that any tax pays for. Or do you think that you should be able to stop paying taxes, but just reap the rewards of other people's taxes?

I still want you to provide a clear factual definition of the tax system that mentions violence, because it's simply not true. You don't get violence or a gun pointed at you because you stop paying taxes, you get it because you live off the services that others pay for through taxes, that's your crime, not that you don't pay taxes. The door is open for you to stop paying taxes, you just don't understand the consequences to your own life that entails and think the state will punish you for not paying. They're punishing you for walking on a road you don't pay for.

I view coercion as something that is inherently immoral, and thus a system that is predicated on it as inherently flawed, regardless of how it's used. — Tzeentch

No one is actually forcing you. But you seem to think that you can get tax-funded services and help without paying for it. If you work in a nation you will use tax-funded services, help, and subsidies whether you realize it or not. You have the option to not work and not get any of that, but then you need to provide for yourself in some other way. You can do that but don't expect anyone whose paycheck is tax money to help you or provide you with any service.

The fact that taxation is exclusively used by imperfect entities known as states further compounds my problems with it. — Tzeentch

Depends on the state and how low in corruption and misuse of tax money they conduct. Still doesn't change the fact that a taxation system is inherently neutral. You are the one assigning blame to it by guilt by association. You are unable to see that the solution isn't getting rid of the tax system, it's to get rid of corruption and misuse of tax money. A five-year-old would understand this logic.

Essentially your line of reasoning reminds me of someone who tries to justify a war while refusing to concede that killing people is immoral. — Tzeentch

What the hell does that have to do with taxation as an economic system? That's one of the most childish fallacies I've ever encountered on this forum :rofl: I'm talking about taxation as a system of balancing society in order to create equality between the rich and poor, about having a system that manages the parts of society that helps people living a decent life, and you boil that down to me arguing about justifying war and refusing to view killing people as immoral. Are you mentally incapable of understanding what people are actually writing? This is fucking hilarious :rofl:

You think we're not funding our national defense? — Christoffer

Sweden doesn't have a credible military at all. That goes for all European nations, with the possible exception of Poland.

So yes, Sweden is certainly piggybacking off the US military budget. Yet you confess a certain disdain for the United States, while simultaneously seeing no issue with being dependent on it for your security, and even profiting from it? Quite hypocritical.

You just come off as fundamentally confused as to what this discussion is about. — Christoffer

It's not very complicated. States use tax money to fund immoral practices. So taxation enables states' immoral practices.

And all states conduct immoral practices, including Sweden, which is what I've just explained to you.

No, it doesn't, find that definition please, that includes "violence". — Christoffer

No one is actually forcing you. — Christoffer

If a person doesn't pay tax, they are thrown in prison. If being physically thrown into prison isn't a method of forcing, a method of violent coercion, then I don't know what is.

I'm not sure how more obvious I can make it to you.

What the hell does that have to do with taxation as an economic system? — Christoffer

It's a pretty good analogy, actually.

See if you can wrap your head around it.

Perhaps the dream is to go back to the articles of confederation. That worked out wonderfully.

Before getting too worked up, just remember that this entire “philosophy” is regurgitated propaganda from the ruling class that says the state is enemy #1. Meanwhile we have 40 years of “small government” policy results all around us, to really see what it all comes to.

“But that’s not true capitalism,” of course. Not TRUE free markets, not REALLY what was meant. China and the USSR, however, are exactly the embodiment of communism.

And on and on we go.

So the way out: forget the “ideas” of these people— it’s just pure dogmatism, in the same sense as creationists. Rather, if you need to prove to yourself that their thinking is completely irrational, look at specifics. See what they think of gun regulations, of social security, of stock buybacks, of climate change, of externalities generally, of these abortion bans, of union busting.

Low and behold, it’ll align exactly with whatever benefits the plutocrats. (In the creationists case, it’ll align with whatever proves the Bible is literal: Noah’s flood is responsible for the fossil record, carbon dating is all wrong because the earth is 6,000 years old, etc.)

My point is: don’t expect a real argument. The ideology will shift as needed. Like playing whac-a-mole.

If a person doesn't pay tax, they are thrown in prison. — Tzeentch

No they don’t. Stop with the theatrics just to serve your confused libertarianism. (But nice to see you’ve moved on from “literal gun to your head” to a more nuanced view.)

You can be “thrown in prison” for speeding and jaywalking too, or any number of other things that are against the law of the land. But we never say that. Let’s not dramatize taxes.

The reality is that throwing someone in jail for taxes can occur, but is rare. What usually happens is that penalties are accrued and, if one cannot prove a reasonable reason for not paying, liens and levies can be imposed. That takes a decent amount of time. The charges are usually for fraud anyway.

https://www.levytaxhelp.com/can-the-irs-really-send-me-to-jail-for-unpaid-taxes/#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20the%20IRS%20cannot,failing%20to%20pay%20your%20taxes.

1. Someone who doesn't pay tax once, and then (understandably) is coerced by the state to start paying taxes, might avoid a prison sentence. Someone who refuses to pay taxes gets thrown in prison.

2. Being thrown in prison happens, literally, under threat of violence, and that generally involves armed policemen. The gun is literal.

Violence and subsequent imprisonment underlies the entire justice system. Perhaps that is somehow justifiable, but there's no point in trying to sugarcoat it.

Someone who refuses to pay taxes gets thrown in prison. — Tzeentch

Someone who refuses to obey speed limits gets thrown in prison too.

So I guess the state has a literal gun to my head there as well.

In which case, all you’re saying is: if you break ANY law egregiously and repeatedly, you’ll perhaps be convicted and thrown in prison. Yeah, no shit. So should we eradicate laws now too? Or just tax laws?

Let’s start with property laws.

So I guess the state has a literal gun to my head there too. — Mikie

Yep. That's how the state operates.

So you’re just reiterating that you’re against states and laws. Brilliant. :ok: