Plight Of Taxation: Not Subject To Individual Circumstance

Why not?

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• antibsman
• antibullshitman
• taxation
• taxes
• legal
• theft
• state
• statism
• anarchy
• individual
• freedom
• talk
• speech

[MirageScience]

This is dumb. You should just pay for what you use instead of choosing to pay or not to pay. What you are promoting is encouraging freeloading.

[AntiBullshitMan]

@MirageScience ''What you are promoting is encouraging freeloading''

No, it specifically works to limit free-loading.

"You should just pay for what you use instead of choosing to pay or not to pay"

Choose to pay or not to pay based on the ability to not free-load off of it. Watch the video response to this before making more irritating comments.

[HugNow]

good ideas in this vid, however, it is way to hard to implement all the rules and exceptions.

[AntiBullshitMan]

@HugNow

Yeah, certainly wouldn't be easy to sort out all the exceptions (or lack thereof).

FYI: The follow up video I did was more detailed. I posted it as a response to this one.

[salamirterra]

I think the biggest problem with the "no education tax" thing is that you benefit from the education of others. Even if you don't want your kids to be educated (for instance, if you have no kids and never want any) you are still benefiting from the education of other people's children. The roads are being designed and built by educated people. As much as I hate to admit it; there really is no way except "one big pot".

[AntiBullshitMan]

I elaborate further in the video response to this.

[MirageScience]

@AntiBullshitMan oh I wouldn't want to irritate you *sarcasm*

[lucifael1]

With due respect to your clear and direct erudition I really must strongly disagree. Allowing the populace to run the state by economic proxy is a terrible idea. Specifically because civil services and state amenities become little more than a popularity contest. And what about expensive systems that may be seasonal? No one pays for the schools in the summer so they fall apart and are is dreadful repair when they are needed. Not a defensible stance in my opinion.

[joshd321]

I'm sorry, this is utopian. You don't seem to recognize the nature of power. Governments don't tax in order to provide services. It's the other way around: they provide services so that they can tax. Taxation is violence, period. As long as there is an institution that has a monopoly on the use of violence it will be abused.

[Cailwyn]

Impossible. The state would never allow it because it would cause the state to collapse. I don't even think anti-statists would like this, because in the process of not paying for certain programs, you would be angering those that want you to pay.

This would lead to hyper-factionalisation, so that when the state inevitably did collapse, you would have the worst case scenario of warlordism that would mirror any statist fantasty induced by the utterance of 'anarchy'.

[sharperguy]

It seems if this was taken to it's fullest conclusion the end result would look almost identical to anarcho-capitalism anyway. The current state would have to compete like any other business and would no longer be special.

[sharperguy]

Doesn't this beg the question though, can I choose to pay no taxes?

How about if I choose not to pay for a particular state service but instead choose a private alternative? Can I choose private roads, protection, contract enforcement?

Perhaps some businesses might buy up state services because they can now compete within a given area.