Interview Game Banshee does Fallout and Wasteland Revisited

[Bradylama]

So then I have a question: Can you decide not to pay taxes by eschewing any form of income and not buying anything with a sales tax?

That's deciding not to be taxed. If I decided not to pay taxes it'd mean that I wasn't reporting my income.

Where did I ever imply that coercion wasn't a method anyway?

By suggesting that we're the ones that aren't focused on the subject at hand when we've been arguing back and forth over whether or not taxation is coercion for pages now.

 

[Sarvis]

So then I have a question: Can you decide not to pay taxes by eschewing any form of income and not buying anything with a sales tax?

That's deciding not to be taxed. If I decided not to pay taxes it'd mean that I wasn't reporting my income.

So do you pay taxes if you decide not to be taxed?

You're just playing word games now.

Where did I ever imply that coercion wasn't a method anyway?

By suggesting that we're the ones that aren't focused on the subject at hand when we've been arguing back and forth over whether or not taxation is coercion for pages now.

I'm sorry if you can't understand the concept of a discussion having multiple disparate parts.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Sarvis, here is why I focus on method rather than result: value is inherently subjective. If person A voluntarily gives good/service B to person C for good/service D we know that A valued D more than B and C valued B more than D. As long as both parties agree to this, there is no way for a third party to determine if the result was "bad", as both people evidently did not think the trade was so or they would not have engaged in it. If Microsoft buys my private island, then I preferred to have their money than my island. If the government takes it, I only preferred staying alive to...not even actually keeping the island because I can be pretty sure I'd have died and then they still would have taken it. There are certain things libertarians consider your consent to be necessary for, and losing ownership in your property is one of them. My consent, however, is not necessary for two other people to exchange property they own, even if that property is something I want to buy/sell and don't like the competition. Your rights end where others' begin, to slightly alter a great quote from the not-so-great judge Oliver Wendell Holmes.

I don't know why you insist on pointing out in every reply to me that poor people don't necessarily choose to be poor, as I acknowledged just that a while back in this thread. As for the effectiveness of sex-education, as you already know I don't place a very high estimate on the value of public-education in general, and the illegitimacy rate has risen by a very large amount in the face of greater availability of contraception/abortion and "sex education" didn't even exist when the rate was at its lowest, so I'd like to see some support for your statement about its effectiveness.

I've said this before, but regarding your "you can avoid taxes by not having an income", you can also avoid becoming kidnapped and made a slave on a plantation by cutting off your arms and legs. That'll show 'em! I can avoid paying taxes by throwing myself off a bridge too! Here is the thing: I receive money because someone other than the government decided to give it to me. My deal is with that someone, not the government. If I got paid in cash, but before I sent the government their share I got mugged by some crook on the street, that would prevent me from paying taxes. If I never earned money in the first place, the mugger wouldn't get anything from me because I wouldn't have it. What is the difference between the mugger and the government here? I can think of several, but none that make paying the government but not the mugger "voluntary".

 

[Twinfalls]

I don't even pay the government my taxes, it's forcefully extracted from my paycheck before I even receive it, but it's my responsibility to make sure the government isn't wrong and see if they took too much or didn't take enough.

What is the difference between the mugger and the government here? I can think of several, but none that make paying the government but not the mugger "voluntary".

Baby's First "How Tax Works":

You voluntarily contracted with the other citizens of your country to pay tax when you chose to continue to live in your country. Your parents volunteered and contracted on your behalf when they chose to give birth to you in that country (which you very likely survived because of developments in medical technology due to government spending), or moved there. You volunteered and contracted when you chose to benefit by:

Using roads;
Going to school;
Using a telephone;
Eating with the protection of the Food and Drug Administration Authority;
Working in a job with the protection of a central banks' monetary policy;
Working in a job within an economy heavily strengthened by centuries of government protection and investment channeling;
Living with the security of a defence program,
Being treated in a hospital;
Knowing that you have access to courts;
Knowing that you have access to police;
etc, etc.

If you cannot fathom the concept that a society places rights and responsibilities on its citizens that are beyond immediate contract between individuals, and that all essential features of any society are built by collaborating - well, then you've got a bit of catching up to do. The rest of the world realised this back when apes decided to stick together to survive.

And if you intend to reply with 'I have never benefited from any of those things, blah blah', 1. please don't fucking lie to me, and 2. tough - if you have been unable to benefit or try to improve what has been collaboratively provided for you, your stupidity is your own problem (you're free to keep that without taxes).

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

You volunteered and contracted when you chose to benefit by:

Using roads;

Okay, you got me there.

Going to school;

Highly debatable on if we're getting our money's worth here. Hell, look at Sarvis.

Using a telephone;

This is a privately owned service. It's actually a tax revenue rather than an expense.

Eating with the protection of the Food and Drug Administration Authority;

I'd gladly skip paying taxes and just risk it when it comes to the food part of what the FDA. It might have served a purpose a few decades ago, but do you really think we need the FDA to check out our food anymore? In terms of food, all they do is up the cost of food while getting us at the other end by taking our tax money.

Working in a job with the protection of a central banks' monetary policy;

Federal Reserve isn't part of the government.

Working in a job within an economy heavily strengthened by centuries of government protection and investment channeling;

Oh yeah, because government has done a great job creating jobs through regulation.

Living with the security of a defence program,

Got me there.

Being treated in a hospital;

Which are private institutions. Of course, regulations like forcing them to treat anyone who comes in the emergency rooms regardless of if they can pay or not has closed down quite a few hospitals lately.

Knowing that you have access to courts;

Considering the "court cost" they tack on to a $50 parking ticket is $140, I'm not sure how much tax money is needed to fund the courts.

Knowing that you have access to police;

Yes, police good. I'll give you that one as well.

etc, etc.

Two things the government probably also sucks at.

Really, you only have three things which the goverment does acceptably. Infrastructure, Armed Forces, and Police. The rest are either private institutions, pointless crap, or miserable failures.

 

[Jim Kata]

What people do not understand is that laws are a matter of practicality, not of ideals. Even in the inquisition, most of the inquisitors were not religious fanatics, but lawyers. Law is not about justice whatsoever.

No government can be ideal, but moreover it cannot simply aim for an ideal throwing out practicality, either. Command economies don't work, and neither do complete free markets. Both lead to situations which are undesirable for the vast majority of people - and for those people eventally, when the whole things goes to shit or gets overthrown.

The problem with libertarians is they just cannot grasp this. Their fundamental beliefs are completely flawed. They will tell you with a straight face that everything should be up to the individual. Except defense. And police. Ok, well, you have made one exception, so why not more?

It's like saying all distibution should be centralized or individual in all cases. Well, mail order makes complete sense for some things, and central distribution for others. If people can't grasp basic concepts like that then they are simply hopeless. They will flat out deny the very existence of thing like global warming or other polution that affects people beyond yourself. Unfortunately, every acion someone takes affects other people, so there must be checks on all personal and economic freedoms.

As an ideal to apply with common sense, it is not bad, but it is very seldom applied with common sense.

 

[Greatatlantic]

Wow, skip two pages of posts and get treated to an auto-rant and some actual rants. How did this come up? [rhetorical quesiton]

Anyways, I'm a big believer in the stupidy and ineptitude of my fellow man. As such, anything that relies on private individuals to make right is in trouble. Having worked in the private sector before, anyone who tries to tell me they are some super model of efficiency and can solve problems through competition in a free market is not going to find my receptive.

On the otherhand, waiting in the DMV shows that government and/or beauracracy is no pancea. I think the government may have the best potential of making things right or better, but only when the policy makes are properly informed on the issues and are actually willing to act selflessly. When this does occur, you get things like laws banning dumping mercury into drinking water and civil rights. However, if America keeps electing boobs, this doesn't happen very often.

 

[Walkin' Dude]

Eating with the protection of the Food and Drug Administration Authority;

Let's not forget the way the FDA restricts access to safe medicines for political reason. Combine that with the monopoly on medicines granted by the Patent and Trade Office, and we wonder why medicines are expensive?

Working in a job with the protection of a central banks' monetary policy;

You mean the central bank that follows a policy of inflating the money supply, therefore making my money worth less? The same central bank that creates aritificial booms, such as the tech bubble and the currently deflating housing bubble, resulting in busts that are worse than would exist otherwise? I am so thankful.

 

[Sarvis]

The same central bank that creates aritificial booms, such as the tech bubble

Really? The central bank made investors all giddy about lame ass websites? Bullshit.

 

[Bradylama]

You voluntarily contracted with the other citizens of your country to pay tax when you chose to continue to live in your country.

That's a practical fallacy. It's impossible to live in any country where one isn't taxed.

Your parents volunteered and contracted on your behalf when they chose to give birth to you in that country

Kind of like how my parents "volunteered" me to get circumcised. Thanks Mom&Dad.

You volunteered and contracted when you chose to benefit by

No such contract exists. There is no voluntary action when it comes to a forceful extraction. It should also be noted that I've been arguing this point on an ideological basis and not a political one.

and neither do complete free markets.

To be fair, unlike Command Economies, this assertion has no real-world evidence to back it up. The problem with the concept of a free market is that it can never exist with a government. The only "free market" is the one that exists in a state of anarchy.

I would imagine, though, that it would still only work like Social Anarchism at the communal level. As models become larger in scale it is inherently more difficult for people to collectivise. If Tonga, for instance, hadn't annexed Minerva I imagine it would've succeeded, but the success of Minerva wouldn't necessarily mean that the same model would work on a national scale.

Ok, well, you have made one exception, so why not more?

Because the Principle of Non-aggression requires that a 3rd party exists to enforce that principle. Law is ultimately rooted in concepts of justice, even if those concepts aren't universal. In anarchy, dealing with instances of fraud, theft, murder, what have you would depend on collectivisation, which acts on a mob mentality. A police and justice system must exist to ensure that the rights of all parties are protected, even in the case of those that have violated the rights of others.

Government exists to protect us from ourselves, but the Libertarian argument is that government should exist to protect us from others. That's the difference between Libertarians and Corporate Anarchists.

Of course, you do get some crazies that think non-aggression applies to all cases, even in those of self-defense, but like I said, they're crazy.

 

[Faustus]

The problem with libertarians is they just cannot grasp this. Their fundamental beliefs are completely flawed. They will tell you with a straight face that everything should be up to the individual. Except defense. And police. Ok, well, you have made one exception, so why not more?

There is nothing flawed about libertarianism unless you simply believe that big government is the answer to problems in society. Libertarians believe in individual freedom and personal responsibility. They take issue with those that do not live up to their responsiblities or, regardless of intentions, trample on the liberties of others. Courts, the military and police are legitimate roles of government because they protect liberty. Why stop there? Because anything else must necessarily infringe on the rights of others. Does that mean there are no laws? No. Does it mean that people or groups of people can do whatever they want? No. Do these principals promise to solve all the problems in society? No. Are there solutions to these problems without resorting to government? Yes. I think there is a real lack of imagination in today's world in addressing these issues and it has become almost a programmed response for people to turn to government for the answers.

 

[Sarvis]

There is nothing flawed about libertarianism unless you simply believe that big government is the answer to problems in society.

Or unless you believe that the world is very complex, that everyone is in it for their own interests, and that if left to their own devices people (or groups) will happily screw over other people in order to further their goals. An elected government, accountable to it's citizenry, really is the only answer to those problems. As an answer to this Libertarians have created a magical panacea of their own called the Free Market, which contrary to all evidence in history promises us that groups will happily NOT screw over other people because it might hurt their profits. Nevermind that Nike is still the most successful sneaker company in the world, despite running sweatshops in third world countries, or that the widespread perception of Microsoft as evil has done nothing to hurt their profits.

Let's take a specific example of how Libertarian thinking is flawed. Military protection is a pure public good that I've never even had one Libertarian argue against (as opposed to police.) But as I alluded to before, in order to have a military a government has to pay soldiers... which would <i>require taxation</i>. So not only will they tell you taxes are theft, they believe that government <i>should</i> provide at least one service, national defense, which <i>requires</i> taxation!

 

[Faustus]

Or unless you believe that the world is very complex, that everyone is in it for their own interests, and that if left to their own devices people (or groups) will happily screw over other people in order to further their goals.

Hey, you just described the politics of government.

Let's take a specific example. Military protection is a pure public good that I've never even had one Libertarian argue against (as opposed to police.) But as I alluded to before, in order to have a military a government has to pay soldiers... which would require taxation. So not only will they tell you taxes are theft, they believe that government should provide at least one service, national defense, which requires taxation!

It doesn't require income tax.

 

[Sarvis]

Or unless you believe that the world is very complex, that everyone is in it for their own interests, and that if left to their own devices people (or groups) will happily screw over other people in order to further their goals.

Hey, you just described the politics of government.

Let's take a specific example. Military protection is a pure public good that I've never even had one Libertarian argue against (as opposed to police.) But as I alluded to before, in order to have a military a government has to pay soldiers... which would require taxation. So not only will they tell you taxes are theft, they believe that government should provide at least one service, national defense, which requires taxation!

It doesn't require income tax.

It requires some kind of tax. All of the other options are privatized security, not national defense.

 

[sheek]

How the fuck do you have a national standing army without tax?

Like somebody said above law (what government is based on) is always a matter of pragmatism. Somebody always gets screwed any time you try to do something collective. People who are innocent get sent to prison for murder every day. That's life. The only principle that matters in the end is the general interest.

Sure too many laws are bad, but because they become counterproductive... not because of some faggot 'coercion' you guys are whining about.

 

[Bradylama]

It requires some kind of tax. All of the other options are privatized security, not national defense.

Mercenaries have been used as a means of national defense for millenia, and ultimately the difference between a mercenary group and a professional military is that the latter is loyal to an institution while the former is loyal to the contract. "Privatized Security" has apparently been deemed a means of national defense in Iraq and New Orleans, for instance.

How the fuck do you have a national standing army without tax?

A volunteer force recruited based on legal or material incentives. It wouldn't be a particularly good army, sure,but it'd be something.

There's also a misconception here about the principles behind abolishing the income tax.

It can be argued that taxes are extracted in order to facilitate the protection of ownership. Property taxes are used, in principle, to facilitate the protection of said property from seizure. Sales taxes facilitate the regulation of commerce.

While you can own a house, and while you can own a car, you don't own income. Income is immaterial, and can't be guaranteed, simply because you have agreed with an employer that you'll work for X amount of money for X amount of time doesn't mean that said employer owes you anything except in the case of an express written contract. The government doesn't protect your income, it can't. So why should it be taxed?

This is part of the reason why people feel that including tips as taxable income is unfair. What fails to dawn on many, however, is that tips are ultimately no different from wage, salary, dividends, or revenue since Income is all-inclusive.

 

[Sarvis]

Mercenaries have been used as a means of national defense for millenia,

And mercenaries work for free?

Nope, you'll have to pay them. Which means raising money. Which means either everyone pays, resulting in taxes, or a couple people pay who then control a bunch of soldiers.

Gee, I wonder what <i>that</i> could lead to.

In fact, what you'd mostly end up with is various communities controlling their own private militaries. I'm betting we can ask Europe what such arrangements lead to.

"Privatized Security" has apparently been deemed a means of national defense in Iraq and New Orleans, for instance.

Explain and cite please. Hiring a few mercenaries to shore up the regular troops does not equate to them providing national defense, neither does using mercenaries to keep order or defend ONE PORTION of a nation.

So you think an all volunteer army will work? So are these people going to pay for their own tanks, guns, body armor and bullets? Long gone are the days when a bunch of guys with sticks counted as an effective defense force.

Sales taxes facilitate the regulation of <b>commerce. </b>

While you can own a house, and while you can own a car, you don't own income. Income is immaterial, and can't be guaranteed, simply because you have agreed with an employer that you'll work for X amount of money for X amount of time doesn't mean that said employer owes you anything except in the case of an express written contract. The government doesn't protect your income, it can't. So why should it be taxed?

First of all, you do own income. Look at your bank balance, there it is. It's even protected by the federal reserve.

Second, how do you think your employer gets the money to pay you? Oh yeah, commerce.

 

[Bradylama]

First of all, you do own income. Look at your bank balance, there it is.

That's not income, that's wealth. An income is how much money you earn, not how much money you have.

I also never suggested that commerce shouldn't be taxed, since inner and inter-state commerce is regulated as a function of government.

So you think an all volunteer army will work?

No, in fact, I specifically said that it probably wouldn't work.

If Mercenaries serve alongside the military then they're performing functions in the interests of National Security.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Twinfalls, you don't have a fucking clue what a contract is. At least you haven't claimed a corporate takeover is the same thing as a military invasion though. I don't think I'll even stop chortling at that one. Also, I'd gladly give up a heap of those things (FDA preventing products from coming to market for one) if the government gave up its monopoly on them (people often forget that the first roads in the United States were private, but the government took them over).

There are many libertarians who refuse to make any exceptions at all. They're called anarcho-capitalists. Many (but not all) of them are deontologists. Because government is inherently coercive, they view it as unjustified and refuse to accept any of it. I'm a consequentialist, and while I can't claim that initiating agression is moral, the near universality of government has convinced that a state of anarchy cannot persist, especially not in the vicinity of other governments. I there are no governments that don't posess a basic monopoly over the use of force within a certain geographic area (that's how Weber defined a state, I believe), but they intervene to varying degrees. All the evidence I've seen indicates that the ones that intervene the least tend to be the most desirable to live in, ceteris paribus. While it's possible some form of coercion might end up being beneficial (for example, if aliens came by and decided to destroy the earth if they found any jews on it, the holocaust wouldn't be so bad, but that's so ridiculous it doesn't really need to be considered). People sometimes bring up "but libertarianism is just like communism", but if we can't judge "true" communism/libertarianism but have to use relative judgement, I don't see how they can even come close. People flee communist countries, forcing them to build walls or prohibit traveling abroad. People go to relatively free countries, generally leading to immigration restrictions. When countries become more free things get much better (see the Celtic and Asian Tigers, the German and Spanish miracles, the originators of "shock therapy" in eastern europe that Russia did such a half-hearted job of going through the motions in imitating). When countries become less free, things get worse (see Zimbabwe today, any of the countries in R. J. Rummel's Democide).

Regarding the necessity of a national income tax, we didn't have one before the Sixteenth Amendment was passed, because it was explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. Rather than having large standing armies, the people were supposed to posess arms and during times of war large military forces would be created. That's actually been relatively common throughout history, especially during the middle ages.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

An elected government, accountable to it's citizenry, really is the only answer to those problems.

The only answer? I dunno, that's the one that sounds like the magical panacea to me. I don't think it's really possible. It's purely an ideal like the free market, but it lacks even a theoretical framework to even tangentially tie it to reality. Informed consumers and negligiible barriers to entry are at least tangible goals that individual actors in the system have intrinsic motivation to strive for. Will the perfect ideal ever be seen in a real situation? No, it's an ideal. Is there a natural tendency for the system to move in towards the ideal? Sure, because each individual actor has a motivation to do so. Public apathy for example is a bit more intractable. Not only is it prevalent but it's even rewarded. You save time, money, and frustration by not voting and not taking an active interest in the system. The system breaks when too many make that choice, but the negative consequences to the individual are impersonal and negligible while the benefits are both tangible and immediate. You might as well say the answer to all problems is for everyone to just be nice to each other. It's equally true and equally improbable. Both depend on the individual making the voluntary choice to sacrifice personal gain for the public good.

Show me the elected government accountable to its citizens with real power that's in charge of over 100 or so. There's tons of venal political bullshit that goes on in your typical PTA, how exactly is a massive government in charge of hundreds of millions with a budget in the trillions going to be held accountable? And if it was perfectly accountable, how would it be able to function if any of the hundreds of millions it's responsible for with a legitimate gripe could grind the system to a halt? Expediency and accountability don't go hand in hand. And if you keep tossing more and more power and responsibility on it and as a result create more incentive for abuse, how is that going to make it more accountable? Maybe you think that being offered the choice of Red or Blue every 2, 4, or 6 years is the magic recipe for success just like your high school civics teacher taught you in the interest of making happy little drones, but I have my doubts. Okay, so empirical evidence shows that's obviously not the magic recipe for success or else there wouldn't be such general suckiness in our government. What is the magic recipe, then?

 

[Bradylama]

For some bizarre reason I had to restart my computer since I couldn't load any websites other than this one, so here's those sources.

Documentary on Mercenaries in Iraq
It's not news, I know, but all of the other results were from questionable sources. If I could remember what security firms called themselves I'd probably get some BBC and CNN results.

Mercenaries in New Orleans

It should be noted that Private Security Firm is a fancy name for a mercenary group. A band, even.

 

[sheek]

Libertarianism is really quite funny. It's an ideology that was fabricated by a bunch of aristocrats and oligarchs in the 18th century... it's most ardent, fanatical defenders are people who probably benefit the least from it.

The fact is that if true libertarianism (*) had been enforced since back then, 95% of the people here either: would not exist; would be illiterate peasants shovelling horseshit for life; or servants obliged to satisfy every sick sexual whim our masters demanded.

Maybe you think that's OK because it's their 'property', and any form of 'coercion' is evil incarnate... sorry I'm not that pure. Under that kind of society 90% of people would be much worse off just so that a handful of degenerates could live in luxury. No argument is going to convince me that the sort of order I described is something to be desired.

Socialism is bad but reacting to such an extreme degree is just as bad.


* ie no government except policing

 

[DarkUnderlord]

You voluntarily contracted with the other citizens of your country to pay tax when you chose to continue to live in your country.

That's a practical fallacy. It's impossible to live in any country where one isn't taxed.

Not quite. You can move to Andorra or Uruguay, among others. I don't know why you'd want to (well, except for the tax haven status) but you can. The Bahamas might be nice though.

 

[sheek]

You voluntarily contracted with the other citizens of your country to pay tax when you chose to continue to live in your country.

That's a practical fallacy. It's impossible to live in any country where one isn't taxed.

Not quite. You can move to Andorra or Uruguay, among others. I don't know why you'd want to (well, except for the tax haven status) but you can. The Bahamas might be nice though.

They only work because they're parasites on functioning nations. They are allowed to exist because poor schmucks across the border pay tax.

I am for the military invasion of Monaco...

 

[Sarvis]

First of all, you do own income. Look at your bank balance, there it is.

That's not income, that's wealth. An income is how much money you earn, not how much money you have.

Again with the word games? All of your wealth comes from income, and income is just a word for "wealth being given to you." Protecting wealth includes protecting money that has been given to you.

I also never suggested that commerce shouldn't be taxed, since inner and inter-state commerce is regulated as a function of government.

But your income taxes can also be seen as being used to regulate commerce, as well as regulating the businesses you depend on for income, not to mention protecting your person, enforcing the contracts oh so dear to you guys and pretty much <i>everything else</i> you benefit from in a society.

So you think an all volunteer army will work?

No, in fact, I specifically said that it probably wouldn't work.

If Mercenaries serve alongside the military then they're performing functions in the interests of National Security.

I never said they weren't, I said that relying only on mercenaries is not providing national defense. Even if that's not quite right, you still have to pay the mercenaries so you will <i>still need taxes</i> which is the point. If you do not have a national means of collecting money, any defense forces you have will necessarily be local ones paid for by smaller communities. That is not national defense, that is a lot of community defenses, and frankly the communities would probably still levy a tax in order to pay the mercs.

<b>DarkUnderlord</b>

Not to mention various native tribes around the world you could live with, who don't have a concept of money let alone taxes.

Even if there were no choices, are you really being coerced by the government if there is a complete lack of options? It's a lot like saying you are coerced into breathing because there are no available options for not breathing.

Not the best example, I know, but I just woke up...