DRO vs W2

[carlip]

I was talking with a coworker and he mentioned an interesting point. I was pushing the taxation is theft idea and he rebuked that it is not because we sign a w-2.

 

Aside from the immorality of the law requiring a w-2 in order to be a legal employee, how is it any different than a DRO model? I am not required to have a job in either system. Both systems cost me money. I must agree beforehand to both systems.

 

I don't necessarily believe they are the same but that point is somewhat sticky.

[Alan C.]

A DRO is not a firm; it's a model, and you're not forced to join.

 

People with whom you wish to associate may want you to show good standing with a reputation system.

 

In addition, they may want you to agree to third-party arbitration in the event of a disagreement.

 

We already have access to these mechanisms.

[carlip]

Yes I'm familiar with the DRO model. While not being forced one has the option to live "rogue", as one big chatty forehead said.

 

We has that option currently, I could live as a hobo.

 

I'm just looking for a way to explain why taxes are bad without having to do a whole DRO summary for someone.

[Pepin]

Why would you need to explain the concept of DROs to prove that taxes are immoral?

[fer]

Can anyone create a state without using force in the statist paradigm? (disregard the oxymoron)

Can anyone create a dro without using force in the free market paradigm?

[carlip]

You can point out that they are only paying taxes because it is illegal not to, but many people are so resistant to the idea that they come up with any excuse possible to dodge having to admit it is wrong to enforce taxes.

 

The main thing is that I hear a lot is that there is no other option. I can try to get them to listen to molyneux but that works 1:5 times at best.

[Alan C.]

Taxes and DROs have nothing to do with each other.

 

What do taxes have to do with private arbitration, insurance, bonds, protection plans, Underwriters Labs, Consumer Reports, certifications, or seller/buyer ratings on Amazon, Newegg, eBay, and GameTZ?

 

A tax is a State-granted privilege conferred to a special class of individuals to expropriate others with legal impunity.

[James Dean]

I think what OP is trying to say is that in a taxation system, we sign a W-2, which is like a contract with the government. While this is just ridiculous because trying to sign a contract with a monopoly of immoral force is just lunacy, just ask the native americans who had perfectly clear and legal contracts that were just ignored by the US and then were forced to march thousands of miles to barren, infertile land that we had no use for. The W-2 form, however is required before you can work, just like DRO coverage would be required before you can work, and do a whole lot of other important economic actions. You do have the "choice" to not sign either, although in the government model i'm in no way convinced they'd just let you not sign a W-2, but the result is essentially economic suicide.

 

In response I think the main differences lie in the different realms the two institutions operate on, the taxation system is based on violence and you are not really a consumer, you are livestock. In the DRO model you are the free consumer and have the power to take your business elsewhere. If your DRO is doing something you find to be reprehensible, like dealing false rulings, harassing innocent people, and so on, you can just sign a new contract with a different DRO. Even if the DRO is doing something like raising your premiums and they're no longer in your budget range you can switch service, a positive move for you economic wellbeing and therefor the economic wellbeing on the whole. When the government does something you find reprehensible, you have zero course of action. zilch. nada. none. 

 

hope this helps.

[PatrickC]

Yes, I've had similar debates with statists, that tell me that you don't go to prison for not paying your taxes. Whilst strictly this might be true of the UK (not Council tax). However, they will attempt to bankrupt you and steal any property or assets you may have, which if defended would lead to the same thing.

 

Both these excuses are just evasion tactics and I agree with Alan has nothing to do with the DRO model.

[James Dean]

I agree that directly it doesn't have anything to do with DRO model directly, but from a statist point of view, it can be easy to fall into the trap of "well thats not really different from what we have now, ergo, welfare state!"

[Alan C.]

The fallacious reasoning that I keep seeing in these discussions goes like this: "I have no choice but to pay taxes. I also have no choice but to provide assurances to others with whom I may wish to associate. I'm being coerced in both instances. Therefore, there is no moral distinction between the two."Requiring assurances from others is not aggression, deprivation, or expropriation and to suggest otherwise is highly misleading.

[James Dean]

I get the exact same argument, how can they not see the distinction? 

[carlip]

It seems like some of you are looking too far into the comparison, a statist will not do that remember.

 

W/govt:

option a) have a job pay taxes

Option b) no job, economically destitute

 

W/O govt

option a) have a job, pay DRO

Option b) no DRO representation, no job, economically destitute

 

All the statists I interact with seem to believe that if a law doesn't specifically impact their life, then the law must be good. It's impossible for them to see how govt making a company to use W-2 is coercion. I'm just trying to see if anyone else has this problem, and it seems at least one other person does. All the rest of this thread is just grandstanding about how much you think you know. I want to know how you're implementing it!

[Alan C.]

If the person you're trying to reason with is really that thick then it's probably a waste of time.

[James Dean]

I was giving you examples of arguments that had an impact with me when I was a statist, the beauty of the DRO model is one of the things that made me "see the light" so to speak and start really investigating libertarianism and market anarchism. Use those arguments on your statist friends, use the moral arguments that Stef puts out there. Continue to point out that a DRO system would be voluntary, that you would have recourse, etc.

[PatrickC]

I don't know if this will help, but anecdotally my experience of people that get cognitive dissonance around the DRO model. They often have been struggling themselves with their own reputation in their real life. Insofar as they have reneged on loans, overdrafts or employers over the years or other things. The whole idea of being judged in that manner seemingly has their hair standing on the back of their neck, which I think is understandable. I'm not saying it's a rational response, but it's a useful one which might enable you to avoid pointless debates with certain individuals.

[tasmlab]

I think you are referring to the W9 which is the one you sign when first hired.  The W2 is what you get in February from your employer.

 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw9.pdf

 

The W9 isn't a contract with the government or the employer, nor a promise to pay taxes or do anything.   It's an information return to inform the employer what your tax status is.  It never goes to the government, but kept on file with the employer or just used to enter withholdings into the accounting/payroll system.  It's procedural, not contractual.  That might help the first part of your debate.  It's not an agreement; it's forced disclosure.

 

You also don't really have to have a tax relationship with your employer, except for the SS and employment taxes they pay on your behalf and your withholdings.  The tax relationships are you->govt and employer->govt.  Employers don't care if you pay your taxes.  The government cares.  This is clearer if you own your own business.  As owner or self-employed, you don't have a W-9 but are forced to pay taxes all the same.

 

I concede that this all gets pretty conflated especially with large employers.  The policy for W9 and tax participation is so procedural that it seems ironclad.

 

W/O govtoption a) have a job, pay DROOption b) no DRO representation, no job, economically destitute 

 

I think the clip I isolated is flawed as well (I understand you are putting forth the statist argument).  The DRO model would rarely need to be involved in routine employment-at-will situations.  Most people wouldn't pre-hire dispute resolution unless your job requires you handling massive amounts of cash.  Even then, most companies use purchase order procedures anyways.  My own company does about a half million in business with no contracts and I hire three full timers without any contracts.  Neither me, my clients nor my employees would ever use the courts to resolve a dispute.  People just quit or don't pay.

 

I think the biggest difference is the W9 is needed so the government knows where you are and what you are collecting in revenue so they can force you to pay taxes.  The DRO is an optional agency that protects you and your business partner if you want it.  

 

(Hopefully I'm helping and not grandstanding!  Apologies if so!)

[James Dean]

I think you are referring to the W9 which is the one you sign when first hired.  The W2 is what you get in February from your employer.

 

Thanks for the correction, with this in mind, the claims against a DRO model seem even more fallacious. Funny how working under the table for so long can get you out of touch with the tax system. though that might not be a bad thing...

[carlip]

Tasmlab

 

No that was a great explanation. Yes I meant W4 or w9 or which ever W form you get stuck with. I've given up on this particular individual as he just claimed "you're dumb, having no government would never work", that was the end of me donating my time to his dissolved mental state.