If a government efficiently solved problems, wouldn't people pay taxes voluntarily?

[LifeIsBrief]

If taxes, were a matter of voluntary choice, wouldn't government shrink to the size at which it would be efficient?

 

I have a lot of trouble imagining a way in which anarcho-capitalism can be instituted, without simply waiting for our current system to destroy itself... and this is the only solution I have come up with.  Could an overwhelming majority of Americans, or Canadians, actually vote, for the very specific reform, of making taxes a matter of voluntary choice.

 

What do I mean by taxes being a matter of voluntary choice?  You get your paycheck, along with it, the government gives you an estimate, of what you would have to pay them, to maintain current services.  You then choose how much you want to give, to which entities.  Some people would donate 10% to a military that protects borders...  Some would donate to the EPA, and the EPA could be used for the specific purpose of regulating violence through environmental destruction in business (polluting a river, fishing it extinct, etc.). NASA funding would likely skyrocket, because people like space a lot more then they like the military industrial complex.

 

Would there have to be a minimum?  In my mind, yes...  Mutually Assured Destruction.  I know, it's probably the least popular American, Russian, and Chinese policy, but also, I would argue the single most important.  MAD has made the initiation of force between states, inherently opposed to self interest, and self preservation. Without it, I do believe we would return to our previous interstate violent behavior.  Now, I will admit that it has only worked in theory, not practice thus far... but I would be very wary of abandoning it. Also, I can't imagine that maintaining MAD costs more than .5% of your income.  I would suggest that, if people immediately stopped paying all taxes we would need to re institute this, very tiny tax.  I don't think however, people would stop paying taxes.  I think that many people would contribute to social programs by choice, some people even love the military.

 

If social program funding is reduced, pay for employees must be reduced.  The best employees will return to the market, and people desperate for a job, would work for the government at extremely low wages.  Funding for government would be dramatically reduced, but so would government wages.  Suddenly the term "public servant" would make more sense, because they would make less money than farmers... Fantastic.

 

Crazy?  Possible?  I think such an idea could be incredibly popular.

[Wesley]

Taxes are not voluntary. Else, it would be purchasing, donation, loan, etc.

 

Government requires taxation or monopoly service. Else, it would be a be charity organization, business, co-op, etc.

 

You are conflating terms by asking questions like "What if government had voluntary taxes?" They would not be taxes, and it would not be government. Otherwise, everything would work fine in a voluntary system as people still will want to pay for the services they want/ use.

[LifeIsBrief]

I'm talking about changing from a policy of taxation, to a policy of "recommended payment, for current services", that each individual then responds to with free will, as a way of slowly getting to a purely voluntary society.  Thoreau had an idea very similar.  A government that allows you to be aloof and contrary to it.

 

Voluntaryism is the C... Where we are right now is the A...  I'm trying to come up with a B, in the simplest single reform possible.  Again, hopefully that .5% for MAD would simply come from people who actually enjoy the military.  If we couldn't afford that, because everyone instantly gave up paying any tax however, I would have difficulty arguing against that tiny percent being a matter of force, because it might be saving the world.

 

This could even occur over time.  The first year, they take out 90% by force, and allow you to distribute anything else you want, to programs you actually support...  Most people wouldn't, spending is reduced 9%, but again, personally, if my taxes went down ten percent, I would probably donate one more single percent to NASA, because I like it.  Other people like different programs.  Over ten or 20 years, in ten percent increments the entire tax system becomes voluntary.

 

In essence, how do we get from taxes, to voluntary donation, without the military killing us all... It's just a thought.

[Wesley]

We will not get to a free society by using public policy. We will not get to a free society by incrementalism in a smaller state.

 

We get to a free society by making a free world for ourselves in our personal lives and convincing those that we can until anything different is a laughable and absurd idea.

 

We get to a free society by advocating parents to not abuse children so that the next batch of people are capable of living in a free society and desire to do so.

 

You cannot change public policy. You can change your life and your relationships. That is all you can change.

[LifeIsBrief]

Doesn't

 

"We get to a free society by making a free world for ourselves in our personal lives and convincing those that we can until anything different is a laughable and absurd idea.

 

We get to a free society by advocating parents to not abuse children so that the next batch of people are capable of living in a free society and desire to do so."

 

Lead to an incrementally smaller state over time, which inevitably dissolves, through public policy?

 

"You cannot change public policy. You can change your life and your relationships. That is all you can change."

 

Evidence?  That's simply a declarative statement, and I can prove the first part isn't true. Public policy changes all the time, usually for the worse, I'll admit, but Abolitionists were important to freeing the slaves.

[Wesley]

Public policy changes. That was not my statement. My statement was YOU cannot change public policy. Nothing you do will change anything to make the state smaller. People have tried for many, many years now.

[LifeIsBrief]

The abolitionists, succeeded in making the state smaller and less invasive into the public life of a large segment of the population.  At great cost... but it still had a positive effect.  The Declaration of Independence, in large part, because of the eloquence of a very small number of individuals, dramatically reduced the role of states in their lives temporarily.  Yes, I as one lone person, cannot wave a magic wand and change public opinion so vastly that the state simply collapses.  However, a small group of individuals with a common goal, could easily be responsible for writing the compelling arguments, which slowly win over the population.  I'm not sure if I personally have the intellect to be a part of that small group of individuals, but it seems very opposed to the idea of free will, to suggest that I, or anyone else, shouldn't try, or couldn't succeed.

 

Simply because something has not worked in the past, or only worked on a temporary basis, does not mean that it is incapable of working in the future.

[Alan C.]

Taxes are compulsory and, therefore, not voluntary.One cannot say "shrink to the size at which it would be efficient" because one cannot asses efficiency in the absence of profit and loss.Anarcho-capitalism isn't something that gets instituted; it simply happens when people stop aggressing against each other.

 

The abolitionists, succeeded in making the state smaller and less invasive into the public life of a large segment of the population.

 

That is historically inaccurate. The State did not get smaller and less invasive; it was precisely the opposite.

[nathanm]

What are government services anyway?  I have no idea.  I know what I buy, what bills I pay and what services those are for.  But the tax money taken from me goes into a black hole of mystery.  No different than if I had dropped cash on the ground and it blew away.  I see anarcho capitalism as simply just having the bills for the stuff you know about, and no theft for mysterious services allegedly granted by unknown people far away.  You'd probably have MORE stuff to pay for in a voluntary-only world, but you would know what it was and how it directly affected you, for the most part.  You certainly could still have some umbrella organization that collected money to fund a lot of smaller businesses and maybe you didn't know or care what they all were, but you still saw the value in subscribing to it.  Whatever form it takes I don't know, but I just know we won't have to fight about it.

[JamesP]

Taxes are a fire which consumes your livelihood. This fire is wielded by maniacs.

 

Seeking to control the fire is seeking to control the maniacs.

 

We need fewer maniacs. Writing restrictions on pieces of paper hasn't worked–the maniacs continue to spread their destruction.

 

Those pieces of paper are just fuel to their fire.

[LifeIsBrief]

Doesn't the concept of maniacs, suggest that there is no free will?  It's seems like a bit of an Us vs. Them mentality, based in the assumption, that you and I have free will and can be compelled to change based on evidence, but the "maniacs" can't?

 

I mean... lots of people think anarchists are maniacs.  That perception leads them to discount our arguments, but if we do the same to them... what makes us different?

[Wesley]

what makes us different?

 

Science, logic, reason, evidence, truth...

[LifeIsBrief]

Science, logic, reason, evidence, truth...

 

Does this create a self fulfilling prophecy?  If we suggest, that we're the only community which possesses those things... Doesn't this explain our low recruitment rate over time?

[Wesley]

No, it presents that "we" have claims set forth that have yet to be disproven using science, logic, reason, etc. If someone can disprove them, then amends to theory will be made.

 

Most other people do not even use logic, reason, or science for their claims.

 

There is a theory on that too that is best spelled out in the Bomb in the Brain series.

 

In science, the longer a theory goes without being disproven, the closer to "true" it is assumed to be.

[powder]

Anarcho-capitalism isn't something that gets instituted; it simply happens when people stop aggressing against each other.

 

I love this quote Alan!  brilliant and to the root of the problem.  

 

so many ask:  "how would the NAP be implimented?  would some people be able to opt out of that statist model?  would it happen gradually, all at once, or by revolution?... etc"  all of it missing the point.  

[JamesP]

Doesn't the concept of maniacs, suggest that there is no free will?  It's seems like a bit of an Us vs. Them mentality, based in the assumption, that you and I have free will and can be compelled to change based on evidence, but the "maniacs" can't?

 

I mean... lots of people think anarchists are maniacs.  That perception leads them to discount our arguments, but if we do the same to them... what makes us different?

 

No, this is not about free will.  It's about whether it is rational to attempt to reason with them, which is what writing down agreements on pieces of paper comes down to.

 

Believing that the right agreement will keep the maniac in line is itself a crazy belief.  Don't fall for it!

[LifeIsBrief]

No, this is not about free will.  It's about whether it is rational to attempt to reason with them, which is what writing down agreements on pieces of paper comes down to.

 

Believing that the right agreement will keep the maniac in line is itself a crazy belief.  Don't fall for it!

 

I just have to ask... What percentage of people are you calling maniacs here?  Everyone with 1 ACE or more?  Everyone who isn't already convinced?  Everyone not in this forum? 99% of people?  That's very off putting to an outsider interested in learning more.

[JamesP]

I just have to ask... What percentage of people are you calling maniacs here?  Everyone with 1 ACE or more?  Everyone who isn't already convinced?  Everyone not in this forum? 99% of people?  That's very off putting to an outsider interested in learning more.

 

I originally said "Taxes are a fire which consumes your livelihood. This fire is wielded by maniacs."

 

I thought it was pretty clear that I was referring to those actually wielding the fire, which would be government and especially politicians.  Sorry if this was confusing.

 

There is a different kind of crazy in the world, though, undeniably so, which is the belief that it is possible to reason with maniacs.  This belief is very dangerous and must be abandoned if the world is to be free.  It enables the maniacs to do what they do, and such belief is unbecoming of rational thinkers.

 

I'd be happy to hear how most people in the world do not exhibit this particular belief.  Whether it's "off putting" has no bearing on its truth value.

[LifeIsBrief]

Okay, that's fair...  but, my original idea, was to organize around the concept of stealing their fire (really, stealing our fire back from them).  Whether or not a concept is "off putting" has no bearing on truth... but it does have a large impact on the success of a movement.  I know it's almost strange to call anarcho capitalism a movement, because to an extent our argument is that you don't need movements, you don't need unity, people just naturally work together when the psychopaths stop being listened to... still, I feel like a lack of an appeal to emotion, somewhat stifles growth potential. 

 

Just a thought though, I completely agree that the people wielding power right now, can be classified as nothing short of "maniacs".  I just wanted to be clear that you were talking about that relatively small group, not everyone who has ever voted for one.

[JamesP]

To steal their fire is to believe that maniacs can be reasoned with.

[Lians]

I'll have to correct the title for you. If government efficiently solved problems, why would people need a government? It would have solved all the problems! "We're going out of business, folks! Nothing left to solve!"

[Pepin]

It's kind of like asking "if a business that gets all its money through force opens up to not robbing people..." to which the response is that there'd be a large and costly transition period that could not be survived providing that competition isn't banned. The entire structure is not designed to maximize resources, to please consumers, or to deal with people in voluntary ways, setting up for a pretty impossible transition. It's like saying "we can take the bottom 5% of the work force that are the least productive the least driven and the least efficient in society, and make a business so successful that we'll be able to compete with any experienced firm". It is literally putting a child in the ring against Mike Tyson. My argument is essentially that if it did happen, we'd have anarchy soon after competition arrived.

[LifeIsBrief]

To steal their fire is to believe that maniacs can be reasoned with.

 

I think this is where you're confused...  Steal, is the opposite of reason. I already refuse to give maniacs any fire.  If 20% of the population (especially the most intelligent and productive individuals) were to refuse to pay taxes, maniacs would immediately begin capitulating to their demands.  Maniacs have never created or improved anything, everything maniacs do, comes from the sanction of regular people.

 

If anarcho capitalists made up a significant percentage of the population, maniacs would be terrified of us, rather than the other way round.  People who work for a government can't survive on their own, thus they have no real power.