Or simply the payment for the services they provide is called taxes.

I would consider that a gross mischaracterization because paying for services does not require involuntary methods of exchange. Not only that but everywhere I've lived I have never been given a receipt of what exactly I payed for. I'm not sure if I've payed for garbage pickup or for Trudeau's socks.

A better way to look at it is racketeering or some other criminal activity. It's a complete scam.

It could be characterized as skimming, a form of fraud. Assume you could follow just one dollar through its tax cycle. For example, I don't know if it's the same in Finland, but here government employees are taxed just like any other private employee. So a tax dollar might find itself in the wage of one over-payed government worker, but then that money is taxed again and goes right back into government coffers. If it was you or me doing that it would be skimming, but when the government does it it is just how we pay for services. This is why the government not only has the monopoly on violence, but also the monopoly on crime.

You are intentionally dropping crucial things here that the sociologist Max Weber pointed out.

In his definition of a state, it is a "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". Legitimacy comes from the acceptance of the people, and behind a state is a human community. Not some others like zombies who make up the government, who somehow aren't part of the people.

In Economy and Society Weber defines the state as such:

"A "ruling organization" will be called "political" insofar as its existence and order is continuously safeguarded within a given territorial area by the threat and application of physical force on the part of the administrative staff. A compulsory political organization with continuous operations (politischer Anstaltsbetrieb') will be called a "state" insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order. Social action, especially organized action, will be spoken of as "politically oriented" if it aims at exerting influence on the government of a political organization; especially at the appropriation, expropriation, redistribution or allocation of the powers of government."

I haven't read the lecture you cite, so the claim I was intentionally leaving things out is dubious, but I believe the "human community" he is speaking of in your quote is the "administrative staff" of the sate. No one else in your group "the people" claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.

It's no doubt that you find the state's authority and legitimacy sacrosanct, but conflating the will of the state with the will of the people is mistake. The only human community behind the state is its administrative staff.

Yet perhaps for an individualist liberal, it's hard to fathom people functioning as a community, but it does happen.

It's hard to fathom how one can be so loose with the term "community", that it would contain both the ruling class and its subjects, as if they shared a common interest. But that's collectivism for you.

but here government employees are taxed just like any other private employee. So a tax dollar might find itself in the wage of one over-payed government worker, but then that money is taxed again and goes right back into government coffers. If it was you or me doing that it would be skimming, but when the government does it it is just how we pay for services. This is why the government not only has the monopoly on violence, but also the monopoly on crime. — NOS4A2

I agree, here in Spain it happens exactly as you explained. It is like a vicious circle. I'm not sure if this is the case in your country as well: Whenever a citizen receives compensation, they must pay the tax corresponding to the amount.

For example: I gained 100.000 € playing lotto. Well, I don't perceive those 100K entirely. I must apply a taxation because according to our laws this a benefit to be shared. I end up perceiving around 89K or 91K, the rest goes to the public budget. The main paradox, as NOS pointed out, is that this happens with public compensations too.

I perceive the same vicious scheme. The government gives you a sum, but it forces you to pay taxes to recover it.

Here we do not get taxed for lottery, but the lottery corporations are all run by provincial governments, so they get all the revenue anyways. But recipients of welfare or employment insurance are taxed on what they receive from the government as if it was a wage and as if it wasn't already tax revenue.

Examples are myriad. Think of a sales tax. If you and I were to sell a product to one another back and forth and back and forth in perpetuity, with the government profiting on each sale, theoretically the product would produce more tax revenue than the product itself is worth, and will do so until the sales stop. It really is a corrupt system.

The only human community behind the state is its administrative staff. — NOS4A2

Lol. Obviously coming from an American. Well, in smaller expandable countries where the people have to have fought just to survive as a people, the feeling towards one own nation is a bit different, should I say that. That doesn't mean our politicians cannot be bad and incompetent and the government can suck big time.

It's hard to fathom how one can be so loose with the term "community", that it would contain both the ruling class and its subjects, as if they shared a common interest. But that's collectivism for you. — NOS4A2

It's hard to fathom how far Americans have fallen from the ideals of their state. Perhaps it's spoon fed in the media, by your politicians, by Hollywood that the first and foremost enemy and threat to the citizen is the state. No really, I believe you. I went with my family to Capitol Hill (in the Trump years) and hearing with my own ears how a Republican member of the House speaking during a Session what a danger the FBI constitutes to the US and Americans made me see just how deep the utter mistrust and hatred for the state Americans have. So it isn't any surprise that you think the way you do.

It's no doubt that you find the state's authority and legitimacy sacrosanct, but conflating the will of the state with the will of the people is mistake. The only human community behind the state is its administrative staff. — NOS4A2

Ok, Why don't you first read what was my point.

The point was this: Communities and families that people belong to matter to people. Their actions and work inside these groups aren't the same when buying or selling or trading something. Everything isn't materialistic and connected to money. And since the security starting from our own families is extremely important, so does our attitudes toward security in general are different. It is naive to think that security is just a service you can buy.

The fact is that if the state's authority collapses, the police doesn't work, then communities organize themselves and perform a similar function. This happens quite universally. Also it's actually not surprising that in many countries the history of the police has evolved from watches made up from citizens (or loyal subjects) who have been volunteers at first.

Lol. Obviously coming from an American. Well, in smaller expandable countries the feeling is a bit different, should I say that.

What's your role in your government?

It's hard to fathom how far Americans have fallen from the ideals of their state. Perhaps it's spoon fed in the media, by your politicians, by Hollywood that the first and foremost enemy and threat to the citizen is the state. No really, I believe you. I went with my family to Capitol Hill (in the Trump years) and hearing with my own ears how a Republican member of the House speaking during a Session what a danger the FBI constitutes to the US and Americans made me see just how deep the utter mistrust and hatred for the state Americans have. So it isn't any surprise that you think the way you do.

American institutions in particular do not have the greatest track record, to be fair. But it's true; the mistrust is present even in the founding documents and much of the subsequent literature. The mistake was to organize these founding principles on roman and republican ideals of statehood, in my opinion. These ideals are as statist and collectivist as they come.

Ok, Why don't you first read what was my point?

The point was this: Communities and families that people belong to matter to people and their actions and work inside this group aren't the same when buying or selling something. Everything isn't materialistic and connected to money. And since the security starting from our own families is extremely important, so does our attitudes toward security in general are different.

The fact is that if the state's authority collapses, the police doesn't work, then communities organize themselves the similar function. This happens quite universally.

While I think it's true that some individuals seek state-like authority in any given community, and that a vanguard might arise as an authoritative organization, I don't think that is the case with all of its members. In other words, only a part of a community, a ruling class, seeks power over others and organize themselves in a similar function. In other words, it's not as universal as we like to say it is.

But recipients of welfare or employment insurance are taxed on what they receive from the government as if it was a wage and as if it wasn't already tax revenue. — NOS4A2

Yes, it's as it is. The unemployment subsidies are taxed here as "Income taxes". It is one of the main paradoxes and stupidities that I hardly can understand about the system. Frankly, I think the government is kidding us... You consider it as corrupt, but I see it as senseless.

What's your role in your government? — NOS4A2

I don't work for the government and am not an official. Yet as a reservist I have voluntarily trained other reservists, so that's I guess the closest I come to working with the authorities. It's been quite popular now especially after last year. And when your government in these voluntary exercises train reservists how to detonate a VBIED by a text message (as how in the Big World it is done), you know there is trust between the government (the armed forces) and it's reservists.

American institutions in particular do not have the greatest track record, to be fair. But it's true; the mistrust is present even in the founding documents and much of the subsequent literature. The mistake was to organize these founding principles on roman and republican ideals of statehood, in my opinion. These ideals are as statist and collectivist as they come. — NOS4A2

That is a very interesting point of view.

Care to elaborate what's the mistake with Roman and Republican ideals. I thought the "Republican" part of the US system avoided the democracy becoming something like in the French Revolution.

In other words, only a part of a community, a ruling class, seeks power over others and organize themselves in a similar function. In other words, it's not as universal as we like to say it is. — NOS4A2

Those that seek power are a minority, I agree. But those who take part in a voluntary street patrol or militia are usually those that do other community work and are respected in the community. Of course there are criminals too who obviously see an opening in a protection racket, but well, they are part of their own community.

It's quite similar to the people that show up to help if there is a natural disaster, actually.

I don't work for the government and am not an official. Yet as a reservist I have voluntarily trained other reservists, so that's I guess the closest I come to working with the authorities. It's been quite popular now especially after last year. And when your government in these voluntary exercises train reservists how to detonate a VBIED by a text message (as how in the Big World it is done), you know there is trust between the government (the armed forces) and it's reservists.

I've heard the stories of White Death and now I view you in a different light. But there is something to be said about reservists and a combat-trained populace.

That is a very interesting point of view.

Care to elaborate what's the mistake with Roman and Republican ideals. I thought the "Republican" part of the US system avoided the democracy becoming something like in the French Revolution.

Notions of statehood and sovereignty flow directly from the genealogy of the republican system (not to be confused with the Grand Old Party), and I believe most if not every state, no matter its founding ideals, are based on republican foundations (even communist ones, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, People's Republic of China, for example). Terms like "Head of State" (in the early-modern period, literally the head of the the political body), and systems of representative government (rather than rule of the people), mixed constitutions, parliament, the senate, the social contract etc. are republican ideals. Even the French revolution sought a republic. Given that republicanism on the one hand and liberalism on the other are distinct, though often conflated, I would argue that it is republicanism rather than liberalism that is the dominant political and state ideology throughout the world. I would even argue that liberalism has never gained any foothold anywhere in the world, as far as I can tell.

Can't wait to hear proposals on how government services should be paid for.

I've heard the stories of White Death and now I view you in a different light. — NOS4A2

Lol. If there wouldn't have been conscription in this country, I would never, ever have gone to the military voluntarily. Not because of opposing the service, but because I had so low self esteem that I considered to be totally unfit for military service. I thought it would be living hell (as I wasn't at all good in sports in school), and really didn't think I'd find myself as a reserve officer.

I would argue that it is republicanism rather than liberalism that is the dominant political and state ideology throughout the world. — NOS4A2

I totally agree with this.

I would argue that it is republicanism rather than liberalism that is the dominant political and state ideology throughout the world. I would even argue that liberalism has never gained any foothold anywhere in the world, as far as I can tell. — NOS4A2

Many would have an opposite view. Liberalism, the classic liberalism, is a political movement that was very successful especially in the 19th Century, but had started in earnest in the 18th Century. It was so successful that the movement basically waned after achieving it's main objectives. It's like feminism after women getting the vote and have equal rights to wealth: after the most important issues are fulfilled come "new waves".

Hence saying that liberalism hasn't ever gained any foothold anywhere in the world sounds like the often heard argument here that "Marxism has never been TRULY attempted in the world".

Can't wait to hear proposals on how government services should be paid for. — LuckyR

Didn't you read the arguments provided at least? :roll:
The exchange between ssu and NOS is interesting, and we can learn a lot.

On the other hand, keep in mind that my intention in this thread is not to undermine the taxation itself. But trying to understand why some states manage public budget better than another, and explain that paying "high" taxes doesn't always provide better public services.

Hence saying that liberalism hasn't ever gained any foothold anywhere in the world sounds like the often heard argument here that "Marxism has never been TRULY attempted in the world".

I’m aware that many or even most would disagree. Liberalism may have had some brief inroads, like a 50 year presence in England, but it was all in opposition to the general rule and how things were actually run. Herbert Spencer wrote about how the Whigs were Tories of a new type, detailing how they took steps to curtail freedom instead promote it during their brief surge.

Either way, wherever one looks there has been no liberty, no laissez-faire, and no individualism anywhere in the world. No one can point to a liberal place or liberal time period because the closer one looks there lies the law, regulation, military, and the statism present in all other ideologies.

Can't wait to hear proposals on how government services should be paid for.

They shouldn’t be.

Either way, wherever one looks there has been no liberty, no laissez-faire, and no individualism anywhere in the world. No one can point to a liberal place or liberal time period because the closer one looks there lies the law, regulation, military, and the statism present in all other ideologies. — NOS4A2

The simple fact is that democracy is the cause of this, and I would say rightly so. (There are naturally other reasons, but this is a structural reason for this in the West)

If we assume that all citizens have a vote, then always people will have different views. It's totally absurd to think that everyone will want the laissez-faire liberalism. They'll be happy if the economy and the society works, but that won't change their ideas. Enough people will want safety-nets and a welfare state. Other people will crave for strong leaders. Don't think that the most liberal success story of a society won't have it's leftists that are critical about it the whole system. Social-democracy just thrives in a capitalist liberal system: there's always the lure of "curbing the excesses of capitalism" for many. Marxism-Leninism was a failure, but Social-Democracy and overall leftism survives very well in a functioning capitalist society.

Thinking otherwise would be as delusional and mad as the Marxists thinking that somehow with educating new generations, all people will be happy Marxists. You won't get everybody to be a liberal.

We have to make of the World what we really can, not daydream about people being different. Yes, radical thinking is good, striving for the values of liberalism is good. I don't complain about that. Yet we shouldn't forget reality.

They shouldn’t be.

Ah yes, another "something for nothing" dreamer.

I have no illusions. I don’t think any statist wants any sort of freedom, that much is clear, nor would I expect anyone to accept any ideology. At any rate, I don’t think anything like liberalism or Marxism can exist on Republican terms.

You might be surprised but you don’t have to always pay for things with stolen money. Another crook.

At any rate, I don’t think anything like liberalism or Marxism can exist on Republican terms. — NOS4A2

Marxism yes, liberalism, ummm... now just what to you is liberalism? I think you are simply disillusioned or disenchanted about the current state of the Republic (of the US). Yeah, who don't be? Or then you feel better the more ultra-liberalist you think you are. More refreshing?

We should start from the role of family in society here, perhaps. That's where community and the collective start I guess.

You might be surprised but you don’t have to always pay for things with stolen money. Another crook.

Still waiting to hear about the details on the acquisition of "nonstolen" money...

Still waiting to hear about the details on the acquisition of "nonstolen" money...

Have you ever paid for something voluntarily, for instance for a product or service? We do it all the time.

No sense trying to figure anything out unless you first reject democracy and the idea of social concern — while accepting as legitimate the institution of slavery.

But if you do that, Trump-supporting fascists make perfect sense and are very consistent.

I guess you'd use a fee for service model. So have you "used" the Department of Defense's "services"? Do you pay for the Fire Department's equipment before or after your house catches fire?

Do you pay for the Fire Department's equipment before or after your house catches fire? — LuckyR

Well, one does buy insurances for various issues and hope one isn't going to need the services.

Yet even in the case of the fire department this is a bit tricky. If / when you opt not to have that "insurance", then by logic the fire department will not come to help when your home catches on fire. All fine, if the house is in rural area. Yet if it's in a tightly built up city center, the adjacent building owners might not be so happy that your building/home, if caught on fire, will be let to burn down. They might insist that you take the insurance to protect also their property. Again, as in multiple cases, individual freedom can harm others.

But then the "insurance" against another country attacking your country, the "buying a service" of the armed forces, the mentality is even more weird. Many libertarians will do an exception with the military and defense (and briskly move on to other issues), because here the individual freedom viewpoint loses reality. What if you opt out of paying for that "insurance"? Is whoever from ISIS to Putin free to do with you whatever they want? These libertarians, who have opted out not to pay for the police/army/security "insurance", can you start hunting them down from helicopters as an extreme sport? (A gunship is required because many of them have shotguns to protect themselves)

I would not pay for the Dept. of defense or the fire department given the chance. How much have you payed for either service and have you gotten your money’s worth?

Speaking of getting your money's worth, just out of curiosity, do you feel better about purchasing your auto insurance if your car gets totalled or if you never have an accident?

And does it make you feel better about paying for health insurance if you get a serious illness?

The ridiculous thing is folks posting such nonsense using the internet, when the internet would never have existed due to a lack of research funding if money was only ever spent on "products and services"

How much have you payed for the Department of defense and have you gotten your money’s worth? I wager you have no clue what you’re paying for or where your money goes, whether to the fire department or into right into a politician’s pocket.

How much have you payed for the Department of defense and have you gotten your money’s worth? I wager you have no clue what you’re paying for or where your money goes, whether to the fire department or into right into a politician’s pocket.

Yeah the 'ol won't/can't answer questions, so throw out random ones of your own. I have to admit I used to do stuff like that a long time ago.

As to your queries: I don't know and I (pretty much) don't care or worry about it. I have received a huge amount from my tax dollar, even though I am paying more total taxes than the vast majority.

Yeah the 'ol won't/can't answer questions, so throw out random ones of your own. I have to admit I used to do stuff like that a long time ago.

Used to? That’s the second time I asked that question, right after answering yours. So you still do it.

As to your queries: I don't know and I (pretty much) don't care or worry about it. I have received a huge amount from my tax dollar, even though I am paying more total taxes than the vast majority.

What have you received?

Oh not much except for food that's safer to eat, a top notch education system, medications that have research to show they work, clean drinking water, cleaner air to breathe, National and State parks and other recreation areas, I don't have to speak German or Russian (DoD reference), a financial system that has pretty much made for a great retirement, a top notch medical system, the internet, GPS, I can go on but you may have nodded off.