Taxation To Finance Security - When Is It Just?

[r3volution 3.0]

By "security" I'm referring to the protection of life and property from aggression, domestic or foreign, by such institutions as police, courts, and the military. It would seem that the first and last poll options are the only consistent positions. So, I'm mostly interested in hearing from people in the middle, which I assume are most people.

Go

[phill4paul]

Involuntary taxation is theft. I am an Agorist.

[Swordsmyth]

The question of groups and territory is very complex, but neither anarchy nor world government is right.
People would settle the problem of groups and territory through secession if globalists and imperialist can be defeated.
The war between the states, was a terrible defeat for justice.

[otherone]

By "security" I'm referring to the protection of life and property from aggression, domestic or foreign, by such institutions as police, courts, and the military. It would seem that the first and last poll options are the only consistent positions. So, I'm mostly interested in hearing from people in the middle, which I assume are most people.

Go

Believing that it is just for me to be taxed doesn't mean that it is just for my neighbor to be taxed.

[r3volution 3.0]

Believing that it is just for me to be taxed doesn't mean that it is just for my neighbor to be taxed.

Fair enough, but that's really beside the point of the thread, which is, to rephrase:

"For the security of whom is it just to tax a person?"

...everyone, only his countrymen, only the people in his state, etc.

[otherone]

Fair enough, but that's really beside the point of the thread, which is, to rephrase:

"For the security of whom is it just to tax a person?"

...everyone, only his countrymen, only the people in his state, etc.

It is only just to tax those who believe taxes are just.

[r3volution 3.0]

It is only just to tax those who believe taxes are just.

If you're saying that it's only just to tax those who consent to be taxed, those aren't taxes at all.

The question being asked is when, if ever, is it just to force people to pay for the security of others.

[otherone]

If you're saying that it's only just to tax those who consent to be taxed, those aren't taxes at all.

The question being asked is when, if ever, is it just to force people to pay for the security of others.

When is force justified?

[r3volution 3.0]

When is force justified?

Are you asking me when force is justified, or asking me if that's the question asked in the poll?

[otherone]

Are you asking me when force is justified, or asking me if that's the question asked in the poll?

Same thing. You are asking when force is justified to "provide security" (the promise of protection from force) for various polities.

[r3volution 3.0]

Same thing. You are asking when force is justified to "provide security" (the promise of protection from force)" for various polities.

So you're asking me to answer the question I asked in the OP...? Sure

The goal is to minimize aggression (i.e. property rights violations). The fewer of these occur in society the better. Hence it is just to commit aggressions (e.g. to tax people) only if doing so prevents larger aggressions (e.g. the violent chaos of statelessness). Since all persons have the same right to property, this logic does not know national borders. If it's just to tax Bob in TX to protect Joe in CA, then it's just to tax both Bob and Joe to protect Jacques in France. Hence I chose the first option in the poll.

[Swordsmyth]

So you're asking me to answer the question I asked in the OP...? Sure

The goal is to minimize aggression (i.e. property rights violations). The fewer of these occur in society the better. Hence it is just to commit aggressions (e.g. to tax people) only if doing so prevents larger aggressions (e.g. the violent chaos of statelessness). Since all persons have the same right to property, this logic does not know national borders. If it's just to tax Bob in TX to protect Joe in CA, then it's just to tax both Bob and Joe to protect Jacques in France. Hence I chose the first option in the poll.

Except that the farther removed the power of taxation and policing is from those it affects the less responsible it becomes, soon it seizes power for itself and inflicts many large aggressions on those subject to it.

[r3volution 3.0]

Except that the farther removed the power of taxation and policing is from those it affects the less responsible it becomes, soon it seizes power for itself and inflicts many large aggressions on those subject to it.

There are two questions here: form (e.g. monarchy v. democracy) and scale (e.g. national or global). Since we've been debating the former in another thread, let's stick strictly to the latter and compare local v. global democracy. My position on that subject is that the difference has no effect. There is no reason to suppose that a Rhode Island democracy would be less oppressive than a national democracy or a world democracy - all are going to be equally (which is to say, quite) oppressive. Explain why I'm wrong.

[Swordsmyth]

There are two questions here: form (e.g. monarchy v. democracy) and scale (e.g. national or global). Since we've been debating the former in another thread, let's stick strictly to the latter and compare local v. global democracy. My position on that subject is that the difference has no effect. There is no reason to suppose that a Rhode Island democracy would be less oppressive than a national democracy or a world democracy - all are going to be equally (which is to say, quite) oppressive. Explain why I'm wrong.

I agree that this thread should stick to Monarchy vs. Monarchy and Democracy vs. Democracy.

In either case the larger the state is the greater the difference will be between it's subjects, culturally, philosophically, religiously, economically, etc. as a matter either of choice or good management there will be differences in the correct policies to fit them. (admittedly this difference falls with smaller government, but it is not eliminated completely, and some people and cultures will insist on bigger government.)

[Swordsmyth]

There are two questions here: form (e.g. monarchy v. democracy) and scale (e.g. national or global). Since we've been debating the former in another thread, let's stick strictly to the latter and compare local v. global democracy. My position on that subject is that the difference has no effect. There is no reason to suppose that a Rhode Island democracy would be less oppressive than a national democracy or a world democracy - all are going to be equally (which is to say, quite) oppressive. Explain why I'm wrong.

Also as I stated first, the farther removed the power of taxation and policing is from those it affects the less responsible it becomes, soon it seizes power for itself and inflicts many large aggressions on those subject to it.

It is easier to protest/vote for changes in a small group than a large one, as the group gets larger the difficulty rises exponentially.

[r3volution 3.0]

Also as I stated first, the farther removed the power of taxation and policing is from those it affects the less responsible it becomes, soon it seizes power for itself and inflicts many large aggressions on those subject to it.

It is easier to protest/vote for changes in a small group than a large one, as the group gets larger the difficulty rises exponentially.

Sure, but the question is why that voting/protesting would lead to smaller government.

[Swordsmyth]

Sure, but the question is why that voting/protesting would lead to smaller government.

In a small state it might, in a large state it wouldn't have a chance.
But in a large state other forces would lead to larger government as the different interests of the diverse subjects clashed.

[r3volution 3.0]

In a small state it might, in a large state it wouldn't have a chance.
But in a large state other forces would lead to larger government as the different interests of the diverse subjects clashed.

Let's say 5% of the population of a state wants liberty.

Why would they be more influential as 5,000/100,000 than as 5M/100M?

[Swordsmyth]

There are two questions here: form (e.g. monarchy v. democracy) and scale (e.g. national or global). Since we've been debating the former in another thread, let's stick strictly to the latter and compare local v. global democracy. My position on that subject is that the difference has no effect. There is no reason to suppose that a Rhode Island democracy would be less oppressive than a national democracy or a world democracy - all are going to be equally (which is to say, quite) oppressive. Explain why I'm wrong.

Another thought, competition leads to excellence while monopoly leads to corruption, if there was a world government it would not need to compete for it's citizens residence or allegiance, it would therefore lack the incentive to care for their interests.

[Swordsmyth]

Let's say 5% of the population of a state wants liberty.

Why would they be more influential as 5,000/100,000 than as 5M/100M?

Because people tend to listen less to minorities as the size of a group increases, in a group of 10 if 1 man states his opinion most of the group will consider it, but if 10% of 100,000,000 hold an opinion very few will listen to them.

[r3volution 3.0]

Another thought, competition leads to excellence while monopoly leads to corruption, if there was a world government it would not need to compete for it's citizens residence or allegiance, it would therefore lack the incentive to care for their interests.

Indeed, the existence of multiple states allows for competition for mobile capital and labor - but federalism solves that problem, no need for full independence of the competing entities. Note also that democratic politicians have no incentives to enrich their countries in the first place; it makes no difference to them if their policies cause capital and labor to flee, provided they get reelected. Indeed, the policies on which they can most easily get reelected (e.g. soak the rich to pay for welfare) are precisely those which cause capital and labor to flee. So the economic competition argument only makes sense in the context of governments with an incentive to enrich their countries, i.e. non-democratic governments who effectively own their countries.

Because people tend to listen less to minorities as the size of a group increases, in a group of 10 if 1 man states his opinion most of the group will consider it, but if 10% of 100,000,000 hold an opinion very few will listen to them.

I don't know that that's true. Any empirical evidence?

But anyway, does that even matter on a realistic scale? How small are these states you're proposing? 100 people?

[Swordsmyth]

Indeed, the existence of multiple states allows for competition for mobile capital and labor - but federalism solves that problem, no need for full independence of the competing entities.

Federalism could work up to a point, but only to the point where all of the subject domains would agree to a sufficiently limit the powers of the higher level of government.
And the member states would still need the right to secede if the upper level of government was abused like the CSA leaving the union.

Note also that democratic politicians have no incentives to enrich their countries in the first place; it makes no difference to them if their policies cause capital and labor to flee, provided they get reelected. Indeed, the policies on which they can most easily get reelected (e.g. soak the rich to pay for welfare) are precisely those which cause capital and labor to flee. So the economic competition argument only makes sense in the context of governments with an incentive to enrich their countries, i.e. non-democratic governments who effectively own their countries.

Monarchy or democracy is not under discussion, but in either case if everyone leaves or revolts there is nothing left to steal. Illinois is about to demonstrate that.

I don't know that that's true. Any empirical evidence?

Practical experience with groups and politics.

But anyway, does that even matter on a realistic scale? How small are these states you're proposing? 100 people?

I am not sure about the ideal size, life would tend to settle the problem for itself if we could defeat the imperialists and globalists.

[r3volution 3.0]

Federalism could work up to a point, but only to the point where all of the subject domains would agree to a sufficiently limit the powers of the higher level of government.

The purpose of federalism would be to allow for economic competition between member states, not to restrain the central government.

If both member states and central government are democratic, there's no reason to suppose the former would have better incentives than the latter, and so no reason to think they would want to check any of its oppressive behavior - as with voters vis a vis their politicians.

And the member states would still need the right to secede if the upper level of government was abused like the CSA leaving the union.

Right to secede --> anarchism

if everyone leaves or revolts there is nothing left to steal. Illinois is about to demonstrate that.

Right, the democratic state will stop looting when it has literally looted everything; but that's not much of a check is it?

We want it checked before it loots everything, no?

Letting a housefire burn itself out isn't a great way of saving the house.

Practical experience with groups and politics.

Alright, well my experience doesn't confirm that. Now, if the people are friends, that's different. But that's only possible for very small groups, much smaller than anything you could be considering as an appropriate electorate. See: Dunbar's number

[Swordsmyth]

The purpose of federalism would be to allow for economic competition between member states, not to restrain the central government.

If the Federal government is not restrained it will usurp the powers of the subject domains and eliminate competition.

Right to secede --> anarchism

You could say such a simplistic thing about revolt as well, which would lead to no possibility to redress tyranny.

Right, the democratic state will stop looting when it has literally looted everything; but that's not much of a check is it?

Monarchs have done the same, and we are getting sucked into that old topic again.

[r3volution 3.0]

If the Federal government is not restrained it will usurp the powers of the subject domains and eliminate competition.

Q. Restrained by whom?
A. By other people with no better incentives than it has.
Q. So how is it actually restrained from doing bad things?
A. It isn't.

As in the other thread, you're caught up in a circular quis custodiet ipsos custodes problem.

You could say such a simplistic thing about revolt as well, which would lead to no possibility to redress tyranny.

What I'm saying is that to legalize secession is to literally abolish the state. If anybody can secede (i.e. stop paying taxes or obeying other laws), the state ceases to exist. Now, you could arbitrarily restrict secession (it has to be a group of at least X people), but that defeats the purpose (any group below the arbitrary cut-off can be oppressed without having the option to secede).

[TheTexan]

Voted "all human beings" but the real answer is

"taxation is just as long as it was voted on at some point"

[r3volution 3.0]

[Origanalist]

The question of groups and territory is very complex, but neither anarchy nor world government is right.
People would settle the problem of groups and territory through secession if globalists and imperialist can be defeated.
The war between the states, was a terrible defeat for justice.

Explain why anarchy is not 'right'.

[Swordsmyth]

Explain why anarchy is not 'right'.

I will explain once, but I will not hold a lengthy debate because I have yet to meet an anarchist who was capable of learning.

It creates a power vacuum that is then filled by criminals and tyrants.

[Origanalist]

I will explain once, but I will not hold a lengthy debate because I have yet to meet an anarchist who was capable of learning.

It creates a power vacuum that is then filled by criminals and tyrants.

Ha ha ha ha ha

(that's a joke, right?)