Topic: why do people agree to pay taxes? - page 104. (Read 51023 times)

I think I also like paying taxes because I also use the governments privates places but here in bitcoin I don't think it should use a taxes because government don't accept it yet so, maybe other people also like me.

So...  TL;DR: "Have fun, Pumpkin"?

The cornerstone in any defense of authoritarian thinking is that a relatively wise person has a natural right to make decisions unilaterally on behalf of the fools about him.

The key problem with this line of reasoning is that wisdom and foolishness are ultimately decided subjectively.  It is very possible to have two humans, each assessing themselves to be wiser (or as you say "more mature") than the other.

Only a fool can believe himself to be sufficiently wise that he may rightly make decisions for others.

None that believe in ruling are fit to rule.

But then we wouldn't be able to look forward to our Income tax returns

You should check it out brah, a libertarian laissez-faire paradise, already in progress.  Don't miss out on the hilarity & make monyz selling off-brand Kleenex & butthole salves (which, of course you'll never deliver, this being Bitcoin & all). 

That was nice of the people. Did they have access to the tax paid? Think of how nice they could afford to be if they had access to all the value they had produced. And think of how much more likely the action would have been. And think of the possibility of insurance, whereby the people in advance voluntarily promised each other help. Peace of mind.

 

This is why I precised "by one free will" and not "society free will". Society not being an individual can certainly not having a free will on its own.

You misunderstood me, I never said the libertarians would break the law. (some would)
What I said is that knowing that our priority is to protect our wealth and increase individual freedom, we can get very creative for not paying the bills of the state legally.

Example : If you don't want to be controlled by the ECB, you can buy some USD.
If you don't want to be controled by the FED, you buy some commodities or invest in art.
If you spread your wealth, it becomes hard to take out all of your wealth.

Same thing with business. I am paying taxes personnally, as a France citizen. But officially speaking, my net wealth is near zero so I don't pay tax, and can even get subsidies for being poor.
My business can also ask his part of subsidies that they distribute for "stimulating research".
You can also spread the business accross multiple countries, get customer accross the globe. Which is easy for my sector. (development)
Sure your companies still pay taxes, but diminished (progressive tax), and subsidy opportunities are multiplied.

The net result is that their decisions can't take out wealth, and you get their subsidies.
This is not a fantasy, but what is happening. And the norm for bigger companies.
They have no choice though, because we are the one making stuff and giving job at the end of the day.
Tax me here and I will go there.

People who pays are the middle class, wage workers, not the libertarians, but they will become libertarian when sufficient economics pressure will shape their beliefs.

Are you saying meaning that the general population is not mature enough for making their own choices ? Glad we get wise bureaucrats for saving us.

Never been there, but let them loose in peace, no one has to defend their loss, nor taking their gains.

Reminds me of a convo I had with another member on here regarding the Apportionment Act of 1911. Check it out. Hasn't been revisited in a long time... I wonder why....

>But we are not against delegating our decision if it is by one's free will.
Welcome to representative democracy.  Grab a beer.

>A libertarian don't have to revolt to practice, just making business with his own rules while mitigating what force can get out of him.
No.  He must follow the rules of the state.  He may not believe in taxation, yet acting on those beliefs would make him a criminal.  That's unfortunate fact number one  Unfortunate fact number two is this:  Our IRL state, unlike your libertarian Equestria, has mechanisms in place for enforcing its laws.  Like throwing his criminal butt in prison.  Which means that unless "his own rules" coincide perfectly with our rules, he's gunna have a bad time

>So yes, if someone want to take a bad decision for himself, the libertarian will let him explore the reality by himself.
>The analogy of the child
>How can you defend that the bureaucrat knows better whether his citizen will get hurt if he acts on his free will ?
Pop quiz: Your next door neighbor, the other creepy Bitcoiner, invites your seven-year-old kid for a sleepover.  She, thrilled by the promised free candy and ice cream for breakfast, decides to take him up on it...   You, being a proponent of personal choice & right to make own mistakes, bid her a bon voyage & exchange a few pleasantries with your creepy neighbor.   Right?  You wouldn't say "Pumpkin, Daddy knows something you don't, it's not such a good idea"?
inb4 "not mature enough to make choice":  Duh.  Look at the securities sub of this forum and tell me your libertardian buddies are mature enough to go potty on their own.

>Such great argument, I am speechless indeed.
I felt expansive, and "hahahahaha!" seemed a bit too formal & dry.

This is true but they know this will not happen they have created fear and fear is what has controlled and ensured people have paid taxes for 100s of years.

It is not ok for the govt to do this but people have accepted for the easy life? i dunno but when they accepted that made it ok.

Question is will it ever change?

That's how the US started . your right, the fools here in the US keep letting the congress screw us over and  not be held  account able for there actions.



but that's how it has been Thu out history one group takes over then later on they get greedy and forget why it was done to start with .

It is generally to serve the masses. You may not get the full use of your money but others do, Is this fair? Maybe not but it helps your country you live in. It reminds me of a story of a farmer who's whole property got destroyed, when people came they gave him money for it all and he said he did not want to take charity they replied have you been paying your taxes all your life? If so this money is already yours, you've been paying for it all your life.

It sure is. But we are not against delegating our decision if it is by one's free will.

Cohesive by force does not make it desirable. Cohesion is also not the goal of libertarians, maximizing choices of individuals is.

Libertarian are not against social hierarchy which arise naturally in any human society, just against compulsion.
A country having a king may be libertarian, a clan having a chief may be libertarian.
Murray Rothbard gives example of such http://mises.org/sites/default/files/For%20a%20New%20Liberty%20The%20Libertarian%20Manifesto_3.pdf, from page 275 in "The Courts".
Also, one does not have to live in a libertarian country to live as a libertarian. More importantly, it reflects how you do business, acts with others and how you control your wealth.
A libertarian don't have to revolt to practice, just making business with his own rules while mitigating what force can get out of him.

Not sure I understand what you mean, so let me re frame in a simple analogy.
Imagine a child sees a candle, and you tell him to not touch it, but he still want to touch it when you don't look.
The libertarian will not scold him, and let the child hurts his finger.
The statist will scold and punish him.

So yes, if someone want to take a bad decision for himself, the libertarian will let him explore the reality by himself.
If the reality hurts him, he would just have learned something and will be careful in the future, without needing uncle sam behind him.
If the reality does not hurt him, you would have learned something new.

As Buddha said "No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.".

The analogy of the child and the candle is obviously bad for the child.
But when Bureaucrats miles away takes abitrary decisions, the consequences are impossible to see.
How can you defend that the bureaucrat knows better whether his citizen will get hurt if he acts on his free will ?

Such great argument, I am speechless indeed.

That's the root of libertardian philosophy--thinking that you are somehow smart enough to decide for yourself.  Looking at you poor rubes getting [repeatedly] assraped in securities section tells me that you're not yet smart enough to be trusted with lunch money, forget setting up a cohesive society.

"Statist" lol.  You mean the ENTIRE WORLD?  For the entire recorded history of mankind?  Because the entire surface of this planet is divvied up amongst nation states, and not a scrap of libertardian land exists.  Why is that, would you guess?  Weak?  Unable to compete with your statist betters?  


No.  Much easier to sell crack to your kids & *then* rob them, rape them, and shoot them in the face.  You clearly don't get out much.
 

Only if I wanted to listen to you regurgitate yet another rancid chunk of leftover liber pap you've been fed on stormfront some other reactionary crackpot website like mises.org or zerohedge.  No thanks.

As a self taught developer I understand. I also learned by myself by taking my own choices.
I've been to private school only to get the degree required for getting visa easily in other countries. (and checking the box for big business HR people)
We were not compelled to learn, we did it because it is the less painful way to get what we want, and because we like it.

Some would say that we understand the value of education because we have been compelled to go to school before. I don't agree with that.

Our current environment (in developed country) put considerable pressure on physical labor in favor of intellectual labor, due to increased automation and outsourcing.
This means that it becomes easier and easier to sell knowledge, which will drive demand on education, be it compelled or not would make no difference on the demand.

Services through the state is a negative sum game. (Seriously - it is due to the calculation problem, see http://mises.org/library/end-socialism-and-calculation-debate-revisited)

You make a very excellent point here. It is often easy (for me at least) to get caught in the circular Statist conundrum from time to time. I must be more mindful of this and remind myself that an invisible hand (not too invisible these days) is not totally required for a healthy, productive society.

I was privately educated in my younger schooling and went on to receive graduate training at a public University. It made not a lick of difference between the two sectors, but then again, I am a self motivated individual and not a passive learner. I conciously chose all of it, despite the fact that it was compulsory and later optional. I have seen both sides and the only thing I am able to conclude positively (all political garbage aside) is that education is the root of self-improvement, self-reliability and success in this World. You by all means don't need to pay $50K for it or even go to school, but the point being to continuously learn and improve your working/theoretical knowledge. I have personally seen the benefits and I just wish more individuals would understand how powerful it can be and additive in their lives.

This is the root of the statist philosophy.
That people are dumb and irresponsible and that we need higher people to protect them, which are not subject to these problems.
It gives you a moral duty to force them doing what you deem morally good, without thinking about their own code of value that you consider as inferior and mistaken.

But if they choose to buy crack : where can they get crack without money ?

By violence ?
However, violence is way more costly than peaceful collaboration.
In other word, if your goal is to get crack, then it is best to get it by collaboration than violence.
By collaboration, the guy that wants crack is effectively creating value for the society. (from the subjective theory of value, this person is contributing to wealth by doing both : buying crack AND selling labor)
If the best way of collaborating with his environment is by getting knowledge, then he will demand education.

Then you would point out : Why is there gang cartels who are driven by violence, not by collaboration ?
For one reason, the fact that crack is illegal make it impossible for them to collaborate with the rest of society without being enforced.
The second reason, is that they don't get access to court,
The third reason is local geographical monopoly permitted by corruption. See For a New Liberty of Murray Rothbard page 137 for the details http://mises.org/sites/default/files/For%20a%20New%20Liberty%20The%20Libertarian%20Manifesto_3.pdf

Lolno.  No more than kids will demand to be fed spinach or dentist visits.
And what would the whining of poor people do about free education anyhow?  They can demand free education or free crack, how exactly do you see them getting either?