Freedomain Radio

I was asked how I concluded that taxes are violent. This is what I came up with, to limited success:

Taxes are a transfer of wealth. A transfer of wealth is either intentional or accidental. The existence of prospective tax law rules out accidental, making them intentional. All intentional transfers are voluntary or coercive. The existence of tax prisoners, like Wesley Snipes and Irwin Schiff, rule out voluntary, making them coercive. The coercive means of the state is violence as embodied in the police. 

Therefore: taxes are violent. 

See the thread here:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=185927854856174&id=791615229

chomskyness:

I was asked how I concluded that taxes are violent. This is what I came up with, to limited success:

Taxes are a transfer of wealth. A transfer of wealth is either intentional or accidental. The existence of prospective tax law rules out accidental, making them intentional. All intentional transfers are voluntary or coercive. The existence of tax prisoners, like Wesley Snipes and Irwin Schiff, rule out voluntary, making them coercive. The coercive means of the state is violence as embodied in the police. 

Therefore: taxes are violent. 

See the thread here:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=185927854856174&id=791615229

Anyone who thinks that there are not natural property rights can reject this argument immediately.

To see this, consider: if a robber came onto your property to steal your stuff, and you forced him off (perhaps by pointing a gun at him), is what happened voluntary or coercive?

ThinkPPE:

To see this, consider: if a robber came onto your property to steal your stuff, and you forced him off (perhaps by pointing a gun at him), is what happened voluntary or coercive?

Oh the robber definately volunteered for a gun to be pointed at him, by robbing the owners stuff.

ThinkPPE:

Anyone who thinks that there are not natural property rights can reject this argument immediately.

You also have this thing where you state an opinion and then you think it's a valid objection. Anyone who thinks that English cannot be understood would reject everything you say.

Mr. C:

ThinkPPE:

Anyone who thinks that there are not natural property rights can reject this argument immediately.

You also have this thing where you state an opinion and then you think it's a valid objection. Anyone who thinks that English cannot be understood would reject everything you say.

Arguments get rejected for all kinds of reasons. Some valid, others not. Unless you are going to spend the time on somebody so that they do not reject an argument for invalid reasons, it may be prudent to be aware of the invalid reasons an argument might be rejected. 

I also suspected that this person respected property rights, but it would have been progress for him to admit otherwise. 

How would your respond if asked how you know taxes are violent? (by a lay person)

chomskyness:

How would your respond if asked how you know taxes are violent? (by a lay person)

I'd say:

It's somewhat irrelevant whether I'm right. The question is whether you would attack me or cage me or take my stuff or support others doing that to me if I don't pay. If you're against people forcing others to pay taxes, great. If you see that actually happen, don't support it or make excuses for it. If you're with me there, great, I can show you some instances you'll hate.

Can any of you dispute my evidence that taxes are not the problem?  Here's my mountain of evidence...Unglamorous but Important Things

Xerographica:

Can any of you dispute my evidence that taxes are not the problem?

No-one in this topic has said that taxes are "the problem". In fact, the word "problem" did not even appear in this topic until your post. This topic is about the connection between taxes and violence. Violence, in my opinion, is a problem worthy of solving, but that's not what this topic is about either.

Xerographica:

Can any of you dispute my evidence that taxes are not the problem?  Here's my mountain of evidence...Unglamorous but Important Things

I can't even find your evidence. Sure, the linked page has a subsection entitled "A mountain of evidence", but I don't see any evidence in that section, just some discussion about posts made elsewhere.

For example, it is not evidence to write "Choice is usually better, but what if everyone chooses to allocate their tax dollars to, say, the National Endowment for the Arts and there is nothing allocated to National Defense?". That's just an assertion followed by a question.

Furthermore, the question has an obvious answer: "In that case, lots of money will be spent by the National Endowment for the Arts and none will be spent on National Defense."

ribuck, my point was...if we want to effect positive change...then we shouldn't waste our limited resources barking up the wrong tree.

You didn't see the evidence?  But the quote you copied and pasted IS part of the evidence.  I didn't write that.  All those discussion snippets are people's objections to allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes.  They all reveal that the problem has nothing to do with taxes...and everything to do with people not understanding how the invisible hand works.  

Xerographica:

ribuck, my point was...if we want to effect positive change...then we shouldn't waste our limited resources barking up the wrong tree.

I'm not sure what you mean. How are we devoting much of our resources to the topic of taxes in particular?

Xerographica:

They all reveal that the problem has nothing to do with taxes...and everything to do with people not understanding how the invisible hand works.

If that's correct, I'm not sure why Mises and the rest haven't made much progress. Some of them even put out very understandable books and so on.

Mr. C, the "taxes are theft" argument is the argument most frequently used by anarcho-capitalists.  Mises hasn't made any progress for exactly the reasons that I described in my post...Unglamorous but Important Things.  Mises needlessly talks about lowering or abolishing taxes.  Wrongly or rightly...people discount Mises institute for this reason.  If Mises became completely neutral on the tax rate...then people would start listening to what they have to say about the invisible hand.  Please carefully read through my post and let me know if you have any questions.

Xerographica:

 If Mises became completely neutral on the tax rate...then people would start listening to what they have to say about the invisible hand.  Please carefully read through my post and let me know if you have any questions.

Perhaps people will discount what I say because of this, but I'm not sure how I can become neutral on the existence of taxes. To me, it would be like becoming neutral on the existence of rape and working to educate people on how voluntary romance can work so they have that as an optional alternative.

Pragmatarianism seems like the idea that I have to have a certain amount of sex regardless of whether I want it or whether it will traumatize me, but I can choose which government agents I have it with. This is not going to work for me.

Mr. C, in way shape or form am I asking you to change your moral beliefs.  All I'm saying is that I hate it...and everybody I know hates it...when people try and push their moral views onto us.  I have absolutely no problem with mormons...but I'm not goiing to hang out with a mormon that constantly tries to convert me.  

If a mormon wants to explain to me how the invisible hand works....what good will it do for him to tell me about Joseph Smith?  Joseph has absolutely no bearing on the invisible hand.  It's the same thing with rape...or theft.  Those topics have absolutely no bearing on how the invisible hand works.  

People clearly have no problem understanding how theft or rape works...but as my post clearly demonstrates...people have no idea how the invisible hand works.  Does it matter that people have no idea how the invisible hand works?  How could it not matter?  

Xerographica:

Mr. C, in way shape or form am I asking you to change your moral beliefs.

OK, but you see a problem with how we present this. I've essentially told you the basis for why I don't do it the way you want me to, yet you aren't working with that. You don't have to, but I am noticing that you attempt to look for what people are thinking and so on so you can better approach them, but perhaps not with me.

This stuff actually traumatizes me to some degree. It's not just some moral beliefs I have.

Xerographica:

People clearly have no problem understanding how theft or rape works

No, they do have a problem. They don't understand very clearly at all that taxes are theft. This is the way a LOT of theft works, after all.

Mr. C, I have no idea what you're trying to achieve.  Are you trying to explain to voters that theft is not a good idea?  Or are you trying to to explain to taxpayers that they are the victims of theft?  Voters are clealry the beneficiaries of theft so I have no idea why they would care what you thought.  But telling taxpayers that they are the victims of theft would be preaching to the choir.

I understand the theft concept...and I understand the invisible hand concept.  The problem isn't convincing taxpayers that they are victims...the problem is that they don't know that they have an alternative.  If they understand how the invisible hand works then they would understand that it's impossible for a committee to determine the optimal level of funding for an organization.  Therefore, they would see the problem with 538 congresspeople allocating 150 million people's taxes.