Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Ecurb]

In the U.S., the Feds supply less than 10% of public school funding. However, the biggest source of funding is state government (although local government supplies almost the same amount). In many cases. State government cannot really be considered local.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Ecurb,

Thank you for your replies!

It's probably worth noting, the Original Post (OP) contains specific mathematical definitions for three categories of governments:

(1) big non-local governments

(2) small local governments (or pseudo-governments)

(3) medium governments (i.e. governments that don't fall into either of the above two categories).

In the U.S., the Feds supply less than 10% of public school funding. However, the biggest source of funding is state government (although local government supplies almost the same amount). In many cases. State government cannot really be considered local.

This is not true in my town. The majority of funding for our schools comes from in town without going through the state (or feds) first. I know because I was an unpaid member of the Board of Ed for over three years. It seems like a moot point (and likely an off-topic one) to me in regard to the topic and question at hand, though. The question in this topic is whether taxation by big non-local governments is consensual.

If you want to make a new topic to discuss one of the following other questions, please feel free:

- "Can schools be funded locally without relying on taxes from big non-local governments?"

- "Can schools be funded consensually?"

- "Can we end world hunger without committing large-scale organized non-defensive violence against peaceful humans?"

etc.

Correct me if I am missing something, but I don't see how the answer to any of those questions would change or affect the answer to the titular question:

Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?


It might worth noting that if someone forces me against my will at gunpoint to buy and eat a banana, it's not consensual even though I got a banana out of it, even if I like a bananas. The fact that the huge expensive violent federal government happens to spend its violently stolen money on kickbacks to campaign financers and wealthy special interests and things like the violent expensive war on drugs like marijuana and the prison industrial complex and things like "Pakistanian Gender Studies", instead of giving me delicious bananas (or other things I might like), in no way affects whether it is consensual or not. It's not a coincidence that rapists happen to be bad in bed and ungenerous lovers, since they don't need to earn their sex partners' affection, but to think it's relevant is this thread would be to put the cart before the horse and mistake a correlated effect as being a cause or even a necessary condition which it's not. Even good sex from a generous love is rape if is not consensual. If the rapist gives you a cupcake afterwards, it's still not consensual; you're just a rape victim with a cupcake.

First, if taxation is non-consensual (as it clearly is in many cases), it is equally so whether it is local or non-local. If you want to argue for localized government, there must be some other rationale.

I am not making the argument that taxes by local governments are consensual, let alone medium-sized non-local governments. In fact, I certainly think the typical local mafia protection racket is not consensual.

If you make a new topic arguing that local taxes are non-consensual too, it's likely I would agree with your argument. Of course, if others posted good counter-arguments it's possible my conclusions might end up somewhere else and/or change.

Similarly, I could make the argument that "all dogs are X". Maybe you think "all mammals are X" or maybe you think "all dogs are X and almost all mammals are X". If so, then you still agree with me. It's not an objection. It's just an agreement with quasi-off-topic extra information.

Nonetheless, in analogy, I'm not talking about mammals; I'm talking about dogs. If we cannot agree whether all dogs are X, we certainly cannot agree if all mammals are.

So let me ask again: Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?

The bit about rights highlighted in your last post was directed at GE, who is obsessed with rights. The point is that all rights are nothing more than obligations on the part of other people (the right to life obliges others not to kill you, and that's the only thing it does).

I'm not sure what you mean by "rights". Can you define "rights" as you use the term?

Just to help me understand what you mean by the term, when marital rape was legal in the USA, did husbands have a right to rape their wives? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm asking so I can understand what you mean by the word "rights".

Contracts also obligate other people (legally and morally) to do what they have contracted to do

I don't agree, and I don't understand the relevance.

I don't believe in any kind of 'moral obligation'.

I don't believe immorality/evil exists, but more importantly I don't see how that fact (or the counter-claim to it) or anything to do with so-called "morality" at all is relevant to the topic of whether or not taxation by big non-local government is consensual.

Similarly, I'm likewise doubtful that 'legal obligations' are relevant. That is, assuming I understand what you mean by 'legal obligation'. To be sure I do, let me ask: Did the family that hid Anne Frank and her family in their attic have a legal obligation to not do that and instead turn Anne Frank and her family in to the government (which, sadly, they ultimately did)? Did taxpayers in Nazi Germany have a legal obligation to pay taxes to the Nazi government? Was that taxation consensual? If not, what about the taxes paid by German taxpayers in the years right before Hitler was elected? Were those taxes consensual?

If a "social contract" obliges people to honor rights (to refrain from stealing, for example), then it is similar to other, signed contracts.

Sorry, with respect and politeness, I have no idea what you mean by the above sentence. As I use the terms, the above sentence is self-contradictory. As I use the terms, the phrase 'unsigned contract' is a self-contradicting oxymoron.

To re-state what I already posted in an earlier post:

As I use the terms, even a very explicit handshake agreement is absolutely not a contract.

Even a piece of paper in which one party has written down their understanding of the agreement and shown it to other who themselves read it in full is not a contract, even though it is in writing and has been read by both parties. One could call it a "draft contract" while waiting for one or more parties to sign it.


Thank you,
Scott

[Ecurb]

As I use the terms, any promise is as morally binding as a signed contract. Also, if signed contracts (or promises) do not involve any moral obligation, what good are they?

[Sculptor1]

Taxation is through the social contract by consent.

I have never signed a "social contract", and as I use the terms if it isn't signed, it isn't a contract.

Then don't use money

[Sculptor1]

Taxation is through the social contract by consent.

I have never signed a "social contract", and as I use the terms if it isn't signed, it isn't a contract.

Regardless, for me to understand the context of your other comments, please answer this question:

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested 29 times; Do you believe he was in jail consensually? Do you believe he consented to being arrested and put in jail?

That is not a rhetorical question. I am very curious to know your answer, and I believe your answer will allow me to understand what you mean by the rest of your comments.




martin-luther-king-jr-montgomery-arrest-1958.jpg

You are nothing like MLK.
Nothing you offer here is remotely similar to what MLK was doing.
Your privilege includes being able to hold money; and that implies your responsibility to pay tax.
There is no parallel to the civil rights movement in any way.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Taxation is through the social contract by consent.

I have never signed a "social contract", and as I use the terms if it isn't signed, it isn't a contract.

Regardless, for me to understand the context of your other comments, please answer this question:

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested 29 times; Do you believe he was in jail consensually? Do you believe he consented to being arrested and put in jail?

That is not a rhetorical question. I am very curious to know your answer, and I believe your answer will allow me to understand what you mean by the rest of your comments.




martin-luther-king-jr-montgomery-arrest-1958.jpg

You are nothing like MLK.

I did not say that I, Scott, am personally like MLK. Thus, the above comment is off-topic, strawman, and appears to be violation of Rule A of the Forum Rules.

Instead of saying things about me, Scott, please instead answer the question I actually asked:

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested 29 times; Do you believe he was in jail consensually? Do you believe he consented to being arrested and put in jail?

It's a simple yes or no question.

What is your answer?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Ecurb

Thank you for your most recent reply!

As I use the terms, any promise is as morally binding as a signed contract.

Okay, I don't happen to share that moralistic belief, but regardless how is it at all relevant to the topic of whether or not taxation by big non-local governments is consensual? In other words, how does or would that affect or determine your answer to the question, "Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?"

More to the point, what is your answer to the question: "Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?"

Also, if signed contracts (or promises) do not involve any moral obligation, what good are they?

What's the relevance of that question? I'm not sure I understand the question exactly, but maybe it is helpful to note that the existence or non-existence of a voluntarily signed contract can be helpful in determining if a certain transaction or interaction was consensual or not, as well as helping professional arbitrators (e.g. Judge Judy) decide a case if hired to do so if there is a dispute later on, among other things. (Incidentally, I'm not the one who brought up contracts in this forum topic.)

This topic is not about morality in any way.

The Original Post (OP) does not contain any moralizing or prescriptive words such as "morality", "immoral", "ought', or "should".

The question is not anything like, "Is taxation immoral or morally good" or anything like that.

The question is a descriptive non-prescriptive matter of fact question: Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?

So, all questions or matters of morality, superstition, or religion aside, please answer the amoral non-religious simple matter of fact question that is the sole subject of this forum topic: Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?


Thank you,
Scott

[Ecurb]

I've answered the original question several times. Taxation is often (but not always) non-consensual. This is true whether it is local, regional, or national. Surely it is reasonable to expand the discussion to include asking, 'What are the implications of this obvious truth? Where does recognizing this fact it lead us?"

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Good_Egg,

If you imagine a wild west town beset by bandits, and someone suggests that all the townsfolk pay a small amount each and hire a sheriff that could be pretty near the consensual end of the scale.

It could be at either end of the scale. The hypothetical example doesn't provide enough information to say.

In terms of consent, it doesn't matter whether the group is buying a sheriff, buying a cupcake, or simply wants to burn the money in a bon fire for fun. In terms of consent, it simply matters whether the ones who are paying into the group purchase are doing so consensually or non-consensually. If 100 people live in a town and they all want to buy a big cupcake for some reason, and all voluntarily pay into a group fund to do it, then that is consensual. If a couple people want to buy a cupcake (or a sheriff) and they put a gun to the head of other people to force them to help pay for the cupcake, then it's not consensual. Consent is not very complicated.

If a person goes around town forcing people to help you pay for the sheriff (or cupcake or whatever it is), then that person is the bandit. In that case, what you would be describing is almost a textbook example of a mafia protection racket, which is clearly not consensual.

Few people put their life on the line to evade taxes.

I don't understand the relevance of the above sentence. In analogy, few people might put their life on the line to disobey a rapist or mugger on the street, but it wouldn't make the transaction consensual. If a rapist points a gun a victim and says, "give me sex or I'll shoot you," so the victim gives the sex to avoid being shot, that doesn't make the sex consensual. In fact, quite the opposite: It's precisely the fact that the person is giving the sex/money/behavior/action/etc. under the duress of threat of non-defensive violence that makes it coercive and non-consensual.

To use your wise correct words, the fact that they would be 'putting their life to the line by evading taxes' seems in and of itself to be extremely strong evidence and at least near-proof that the taxes are not consensual. If the only reason you are giving someone some of your money (or giving them sex or a haircut or a massage etc.) is because they will kill you (or imprison) if you don't, then generally speaking that transaction is, ipso facto, not consensual.

Can we agree that it is harder to generate the same level of consent when government is bigger and less local ?

Depending on precisely how you define the English word "government", I might think the question is non-nonsensical. It's possible if someone makes a topic arguing a claim like, "all taxes by all governments of all sizes are non-consensual" that I would agree with that, and possibly even agree that it is true by definition depending on exactly how the person defines those terms (and related terms like statism, archism, and nanny state). But that hypothetical topic is not this topic, and so we don't even need to get into those weeds.

This topic isn't about things as small in scale as mafia protection rackets or 4 roommates pooling their money together to jointly buy pizza every Friday night. Feel free to make a new forum topic with a title like, "Is taxation by small local government consensual?" or such.

This topic is simply and specifically about big non-local governments.

Especially with the quote above, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that we agree that taxation by big non-local governments is not consensual.



Thank you,
Scott

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Ecurb,

Thank you for your reply!

I've answered the original question several times. Taxation [by big non local governments] is often (but not always) non-consensual.

I think I misunderstood your previous answers. Sorry about that. Perhaps, my misunderstanding occurred in part due to the lack of the words 'big' and 'non-local' in your answer, but as long as my paraphrasing with the brackets above accurately reflects your answer, then I understand now.

Since you think taxation by big non-local governments is merely only often non-consensual, can you give some examples of taxation by big non-local governments (as defined in the OP) that you believe are consensual? I think that will help me understand what criteria you are using to determine whether a particular tax paid to a big non-local government is consensual or not.


Thank you,
Scott

[Sculptor1]

Taxation is through the social contract by consent.

I have never signed a "social contract", and as I use the terms if it isn't signed, it isn't a contract.

Regardless, for me to understand the context of your other comments, please answer this question:

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested 29 times; Do you believe he was in jail consensually? Do you believe he consented to being arrested and put in jail?

That is not a rhetorical question. I am very curious to know your answer, and I believe your answer will allow me to understand what you mean by the rest of your comments.




martin-luther-king-jr-montgomery-arrest-1958.jpg

You are nothing like MLK.

I did not say that I, Scott, am personally like MLK. Thus, the above comment is off-topic, strawman, and appears to be violation of Rule A of the Forum Rules.

Instead of saying things about me, Scott, please instead answer the question I actually asked:

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested 29 times; Do you believe he was in jail consensually? Do you believe he consented to being arrested and put in jail?

It's a simple yes or no question.

What is your answer?

My question is what is MLK doing on a thread about taxation?

[Sculptor1]

Taxation is through the social contract by consent.

I have never signed a "social contract", and as I use the terms if it isn't signed, it isn't a contract.

Regardless, for me to understand the context of your other comments, please answer this question:

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested 29 times; Do you believe he was in jail consensually? Do you believe he consented to being arrested and put in jail?

That is not a rhetorical question. I am very curious to know your answer, and I believe your answer will allow me to understand what you mean by the rest of your comments.




martin-luther-king-jr-montgomery-arrest-1958.jpg

You are nothing like MLK.

I did not say that I, Scott, am personally like MLK. Thus, the above comment is off-topic, strawman, and appears to be violation of Rule A of the Forum Rules.

No this is not a strawman.
You made a false comparison.
I was point that out.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Taxation is through the social contract by consent.

I have never signed a "social contract", and as I use the terms if it isn't signed, it isn't a contract.

Regardless, for me to understand the context of your other comments, please answer this question:

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested 29 times; Do you believe he was in jail consensually? Do you believe he consented to being arrested and put in jail?

You are nothing like MLK.

I did not say that I, Scott, am personally like MLK. Thus, the above comment is off-topic, strawman, and appears to be violation of Rule A of the Forum Rules.

Instead of saying things about me, Scott, please instead answer the question I actually asked:

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested 29 times; Do you believe he was in jail consensually? Do you believe he consented to being arrested and put in jail?

It's a simple yes or no question.

What is your answer?

My question is what is MLK doing on a thread about taxation?

I asked first. Please answer first:

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested 29 times; Do you believe he was in jail consensually? Do you believe he consented to being arrested and put in jail?


It's not a comparison. It's not rhetorical. It's a simple yes or no question. Please answer.

[Ecurb]

Hi, Ecurb,

Thank you for your reply!

I've answered the original question several times. Taxation [by big non local governments] is often (but not always) non-consensual.

I think I misunderstood your previous answers. Sorry about that. Perhaps, my misunderstanding occurred in part due to the lack of the words 'big' and 'non-local' in your answer, but as long as my paraphrasing with the brackets above accurately reflects your answer, then I understand now.

Since you think taxation by big non-local governments is merely only often non-consensual, can you give some examples of taxation by big non-local governments (as defined in the OP) that you believe are consensual? I think that will help me understand what criteria you are using to determine whether a particular tax paid to a big non-local government is consensual or not.


Thank you,
Scott

Consensual: Done willingly.

Some people are probably willing to pay taxes without coercion. The fact that people who do not willingly consent will be coerced does not, I think, preclude the possibility of consent. Some people willingly consent to drive at the speed limit, others speed, and others drive at the speed limit for fear of being ticketed.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Ecurb,

Thank you for your reply!

Since you think taxation by big non-local governments is merely only often non-consensual, can you give some examples of taxation by big non-local governments (as defined in the OP) that you believe are consensual? I think that will help me understand what criteria you are using to determine whether a particular tax paid to a big non-local government is consensual or not.

Consensual: Done willingly.

Some people are probably willing to pay taxes without coercion. The fact that people who do not willingly consent will be coerced does not, I think, preclude the possibility of consent.

I think I understand what you are getting at: Even though they are acting under coercive threat (i.e. threatened with imprisonment), you consider it "consensual" as long as the person would donate the money had they not been threatened. Is that correct? And you think that represents some realistically significant fraction of taxpayers paying taxes to big non-local governments, such that you would only merely say that such taxes to big non-local governments are merely often non-consensual; correct?

So, for example, if a bank robber went into a bank and robbed 10 people at gunpoint, but 2 of the people said while the gun was pointed at them, "I would have given you my money anyway if you had just asked nicely instead of threatening to shoot me," then you would consider that bank robber to only have non-consensually robbed 8 of the 10 people, and you would think other 2 gave their money "consensually" to the bank robber pointing at gun at them. Is that a correct description of how you view consent and use the term consensual?

I once donated over $1,000 to help build a playground at one of the elementary schools in town where I live. Since it was a consensual (i.e. I wasn't legally required to do it), I call it a 'donation' not a 'tax', even though it was paid to a government. Would you call it a tax? As you use the terms, what's the difference between a 'donation' made to a government versus a 'tax'?

I frequently happily consensually buy and use postage stamps from the USPS (i.e. the USA federal government). I don't consider that a tax (because it's consensual). Do you consider it a tax?

Roughly speaking, to your best rough guess, what percentage of taxpayers in the USA do you think would donate their money to the IRS if they weren't legally required to and thus wouldn't face any criminal penalties or lawsuits or such if they refused?


Thank you,
Scott