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

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

In my earlier topic, Is taxation by big non-local governments violent robbery?, I listed 5 premises upon which I believe the only logical conclusion to the question is in the affirmative.

However, the one (of five) premises that seemed to lead to the most discussion was the question of whether or taxation by big non-local governments is non-consensual.


To effectively discuss it, let's use some semi-arbitrary definitions--


A big non-local government would be one that meets all of the following criteria:

- jurisdictions span more than 10,000 square miles
- jurisdiction covers more than 10 million people
- annual budget is greater than $100,000,000,000 USD ($100 billion).


A small local government (or pseudo-government) would be one that meets all of the following criteria:

- jurisdiction spans less than 100 square miles
- width from border to border is no greater than 20 miles in any direction (meaning no matter where you are inside of it you would only need to walk about 10 miles at most to escape its borders, and only 20 miles at most to escape its borders in your preferred direction)
- jurisdiction covers less than 100,000 people
- annual budget is less than $1,000,000,000 USD ($1 billion)


A medium-sized government and/or semi-local government would be any government that doesn't fall into one of the above two categories (i.e. any government that's size and/or locality is between the two categories above).


For this forum topic, the titular question is only about the first of the above three categories of governments: A big non-local government.


To give an example of the three categories of government, take my situation: I live in Manchester, Connecticut, USA.

The USA federal government (which is in principle a federation of independent states similar to the UN) spends over $12,000 per person. If these aren't paid, one goes to prison, and one cannot avoid them even by moving to the woods or overseas. The total amount spent by the USA government is over $4 trillion per year. A trillion is one million millions. It's population is about 329 million people.

The Connecticut government spends over $5,000 per person. If these aren't paid, one goes to prison. The total amount spent by the Connecticut government is over $20 billion per year. A billion is one thousand millions. Connecticut's population is about 3.5 million people.

And the Manchester Municipal Corporation (i.e. town), incorporated in 1823, has no income tax at all but collects $3,400 per person on average via what are essentially condo fees or rental fees on real estate/property that is built on or kept on the small land of the town, which are used to fund the local schools, local fire departments, and local police. If someone doesn't pay these, it's a civil not a criminal matter; the debt is attached to the land not the person. So failing to pay your condo fees is like failing to pay your rent in an apartment or AirBNB you are renting and living in, or failing to pay your share of the rent to your roommate in an apartment or house that you are splitting with them, in that you will just lose your ownership (i.e. right to use) that tiny bit of land that you are effectively renting from the small town that is only a few square miles. It's total budget is about $200 million per year. Manchester's population is about 59,713 people.


By the definitions above, the federation of state governments that is the USA federal government would be a big non-local government, and the Manchester town's municipal corporation would be a small local government, and the Connecticut state government would fall in the gray area in-between: A medium-sized government.


Are the taxes issued by big non-local governments such as the USA federal government consensual?

If they are consensual, how can you explain pacifists being in prison for refusing to pay some of the taxes under they claim they don't agree to them and do not consent neither the taxes nor being dragged into a cage against their will?

One might ask, why would a pacifist refuse to consent to pay taxes to the USA government? Perhaps is as a protest against or refusal to pay for (1) the financial handouts given are part of the military industrial complex, (2) the USA's government's expensive military interventionism including violently overthrowing democratically elected leaders in other countries, (3) the alleged many human rights violations by the CIA, and/or (4) the violent war on drugs and other victimless crimes (e.g. consensual adult prostitution) waged violently against its own citizens. Indeed, if someone would let alone does consent to pay for all four of those things, then that person could hardly be called pacifist to say the least. They would necessarily be many other things by voluntarily consenting to funding such things, but definitely not pacifist.

For those who find themselves under the jurisdiction of a big non-local government spending their money to violently non-defensively attack pacifists (e.g. wage a so-called war on drugs like marijuana), do you pay for that government's violent activities because you voluntarily consent to funding those activities (i.e. you would voluntarily fund that violence against pacifists even there was no threat of prison or such for refusing to fund violence against pacifists) or are you coerced into your funding of violence against pacifists (i.e. you pay because you are threatened with violence and/or imprisonment by the collector if you refuse to pay)?

[LuckyR]

In my earlier topic, Is taxation by big non-local governments violent robbery?, I listed 5 premises upon which I believe the only logical conclusion to the question is in the affirmative.

However, the one (of five) premises that seemed to lead to the most discussion was the question of whether or taxation by big non-local governments is non-consensual.


To effectively discuss it, let's use some semi-arbitrary definitions--


A big non-local government would be one that meets all of the following criteria:

- jurisdictions span more than 10,000 square miles
- jurisdiction covers more than 10 million people
- annual budget is greater than $100,000,000,000 USD ($100 billion).


A small local government (or pseudo-government) would be one that meets all of the following criteria:

- jurisdiction spans less than 100 square miles
- width from border to border is no greater than 20 miles in any direction (meaning no matter where you are inside of it you would only need to walk about 10 miles at most to escape its borders, and only 20 miles at most to escape its borders in your preferred direction)
- jurisdiction covers less than 100,000 people
- annual budget is less than $1,000,000,000 USD ($1 billion)


A medium-sized government and/or semi-local government would be any government that doesn't fall into one of the above two categories (i.e. any government that's size and/or locality is between the two categories above).


For this forum topic, the titular question is only about the first of the above three categories of governments: A big non-local government.


To give an example of the three categories of government, take my situation: I live in Manchester, Connecticut, USA.

The USA federal government (which is in principle a federation of independent states similar to the UN) spends over $12,000 per person. If these aren't paid, one goes to prison, and one cannot avoid them even by moving to the woods or overseas. The total amount spent by the USA government is over $4 trillion per year. A trillion is one million millions. It's population is about 329 million people.

The Connecticut government spends over $5,000 per person. If these aren't paid, one goes to prison. The total amount spent by the Connecticut government is over $20 billion per year. A billion is one thousand millions. Connecticut's population is about 3.5 million people.

And the Manchester Municipal Corporation (i.e. town), incorporated in 1823, has no income tax at all but collects $3,400 per person on average via what are essentially condo fees on real estate/property that is built on or kept on the small land of the town, which are used to fund the local schools, local fire departments, and local police. If someone doesn't pay these, it's a civil not a criminal matter; the debt is attached to the land not the person. So failing to pay your condo fees is like failing to pay your rent in an apartment or AirBNB you are renting and living in, or failing to pay your share of the rent to your roommate in an apartment or house that you are splitting with them, in that you will just be kicked out eventually if even that. It's total budget is about $200 million per year. Manchester's population is about 59,713 people.


By the definitions above, the federation of state governments that is the USA federal government would be a big non-local government, and the Manchester town's municipal corporation would be a small local government, and the Connecticut state government would fall in the gray area in-between: A medium-sized government.


Are the taxes issued by big non-local governments such as the USA federal government consensual?

If they are consensual, how can you explain pacifists being in prison for refusing to pay some of the taxes under they claim they don't agree to them and do not consent neither the taxes nor being dragged into a cage against their will?

One might ask, why would a pacifist refuse to consent to pay taxes to the USA government? Perhaps is as a protest against or refusal to pay for (1) the financial handouts given are part of the military industrial complex, (2) the USA's government's expensive military interventionism including violently overthrowing democratically elected leaders in other countries, (3) the alleged many human rights violations by the CIA, and/or (4) the violent war on drugs and other victimless crimes (e.g. consensual adult prostitution) waged violently against its own citizens. Indeed, if someone would let alone does consent to pay for all four of those things, then that person could hardly be called pacifist to say the least. They would necessarily be many other things by voluntarily consenting to funding such things, but definitely not pacifist.

For those who find themselves under the jurisdiction of a big non-local government spending their money to violently non-defensively attack pacifists (e.g. wage a so-called war on drugs like marijuana), do you pay for that government's violent activities because you voluntarily consent to funding those activities (i.e. you would voluntarily fund that violence against pacifists even there was no threat of prison or such for refusing to fund violence against pacifists) or are you coerced into your funding of violence against pacifists (i.e. you pay because you are threatened with violence and/or imprisonment by the collector if you refuse to pay)?

I don't get the difference between sizes of governments. It's all the same. Namely that rules exist, you can follow them, change them, move away (so they don't apply to you), or you can not follow them AND deal with the consequences of doing so. Using the label "violence" to describe the consequences is pejorative and unhelpful. And implies that "no consequences" is the norm that the system is somehow violating. This is an error.

[heracleitos]

A small local government (or pseudo-government) would be one that meets all of the following criteria:

Large government is a side effect of population growth. In a world populated by 8 billion people, we will automatically end up with gigantic Statist behemoths.

Furthermore, the bigger the government, the more corrupt it will become.

On the other hand, the reason why the population grows, is because it can. Society keeps working on new technology that ultimately allows for more food -and other production, and therefore, a larger headcount.

In other words, I consider the emergence of massive and spectacularly corrupt empires to be a natural byproduct of human nature. They are entirely unavoidable.

If these aren't paid, one goes to prison, and one cannot avoid them even by moving to the woods or overseas.

That is not my experience, really. You can definitely avoid paying approximately anything at all to the imperial extortionists. It is not even hard to do. Nowadays, it is even trivially easy to do that.

Furthermore, geomaxxing does help, if only, because it effectively puts your body out of physical range from the imperial bureaucracy. One thing that I have noticed, is that they only go after the high-priority, high-value targets. For the imperial headhunters to seek your extradition, you must have done something that they are really interested in.

For example, they are not interested in you, if you only make $5 millions per year (low-value) and you avoid drawing their attention (low-priority).

You can happily live your life from SE Asia, and never have to deal with the imperial mafia.

A cheap and easy way to avoid taxation, is to set up a corporation in pretty much any jurisdiction, owned by a local of Avoidistan, while only you have all the logins and passwords to the (mobile internet) bank -and other accounts. Make sure to accumulate profits in Bitcoin. On paper, you are just a gopher, who is not even employed by this corporation. As soon as the imperial bureaucrats want taxes from this corporation, file for bankruptcy and forget about it, because the Avoidistan guy cannot even be found anymore. Continue operating with another corporation owner by a local from the country of Evadiana or Untaxiana. Lather, rinse, repeat.

You can even further obfuscate what you are doing by using legal fronts that are taxable but don't make any profits because of the judicious use of transfer pricing. That is what Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, et alii, routinely do. They never get trouble with that. Do you see them paying anything to the empire? I don't.

are you coerced into your funding of violence against pacifists

Yes, the so-called law-abiding, tax-paying citizen is not just an heretical idiot -- as he obeys imperial law in lieu of divine law -- but in addition to that, this incorrigible imbecilatius happily funds imperialistic violence against other people.

These people are not innocent at all. That is why I always rejoice when they get a taste of their own medicine.

[GE Morton]

In my earlier topic, Is taxation by big non-local governments violent robbery?, I listed 5 premises upon which I believe the only logical conclusion to the question is in the affirmative.

Taxation by any government, regardless of size, is violent robbery if the loot is spent on any project/program (or boondoggle) from which the taxpayer derives no benefit.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

A big non-local government would be one that meets all of the following criteria:

- jurisdictions span more than 10,000 square miles
- jurisdiction covers more than 10 million people
- annual budget is greater than $100,000,000,000 USD ($100 billion).


A small local government (or pseudo-government) would be one that meets all of the following criteria:

- jurisdiction spans less than 100 square miles
- width from border to border is no greater than 20 miles in any direction (meaning no matter where you are inside of it you would only need to walk about 10 miles at most to escape its borders, and only 20 miles at most to escape its borders in your preferred direction)
- jurisdiction covers less than 100,000 people
- annual budget is less than $1,000,000,000 USD ($1 billion)


A medium-sized government and/or semi-local government would be any government that doesn't fall into one of the above two categories (i.e. any government that's size and/or locality is between the two categories above).

I don't get the difference between sizes of governments

Sorry, I don't know how to explain the difference any better than I did in the OP, as quoted above.

Since this topic is only about what I have labeled big non-local governments as defined above, if the above definitions are unclear to you, then I politely ask you to not participate in this particular forum topic.

[heracleitos]

Taxation by any government, regardless of size, is violent robbery if the loot is spent on any project/program (or boondoggle) from which the taxpayer derives no benefit.

Humanity originally lived in hunter-gatherer gangs, roaming the plains for game. So, our nature is that we are fundamentally gangsters under the leadership of a mafia boss, i.e. our king. Ever since we switched to agriculture, 10,000 - 20,000 years ago, we ran into the following problem.

There are fundamentally two types of business:

- to grow stuff and then harvest it
- to roam the area and confiscate the harvest that other people try to grow.

Hence, at harvest time, you don't just need to do the work to get the stuff from the field. You also need to regularly cut the throats of rival gangsters to make sure they don't steal your stuff. As we tend to specialize into different jobs, an entire class of people emerged who would specialize in:

- regularly robbing farmers --> The job pays for itself!
- protecting farmers from getting robbed --> They want 10% of the harvest!

Hence, farmers naturally must pay "tax".

Other people than farmers? Usually not so much.

Traders could have to pay for the protection of their warehouses full of stuff, but in that case, the protection fee is much harder to calculate. That is why traders, for sheer practical reasons, only pay a protection fee when they cross the border with their merchandise. So, custom duties are also a quite natural protection racket fee.

In my impression, harvest tax and custom duties are rather difficult to avoid, even though you can often under-declare, or somewhat bribe the tax collector or customs official, but you will usually still have to pay at least something.

Other taxes than these, are attempts by the corrupt royal or imperial bureaucracy to further line their pockets. I pretty much never pay these other taxes, because you can easily dodge them. They are clearly artificial inventions.

So, yes, the true nature of "natural" taxes represent the choice between violent robbery and protection from violent robbery. Pick your poison. You can also get paid from taxes by becoming a violent throat cutter on behalf of the imperial bureaucracy. It is just a specialized job like any other.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

are you coerced into your funding of violence against pacifists

Yes, the so-called law-abiding, tax-paying citizen[...] happily funds imperialistic violence against other people.

These people [the so-called law-abiding, tax-paying citizens] are not innocent at all.

If we remove the word 'happily', I agree.

Since it's done under the threat of violence (i.e. coerced), I wouldn't refer to it with the word happily.

When someone has a gun to their head (metaphorically or literally) and does something they wouldn't do if they didn't have the gun to their head, I would not call such action under such duress as done happily. But that is at least mostly just semantics.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

In my earlier topic, Is taxation by big non-local governments violent robbery?, I listed 5 premises upon which I believe the only logical conclusion to the question is in the affirmative.

Taxation by any government, regardless of size, is violent robbery if the loot is spent on [...]

I don't think it matters what the loot is spent on.

A gun-wielding bank robber can donate his profits to a wonderful charity. That in no way changes whether or not the way he obtained those funds was violent robbery.

In fact, the violent robber can even spend the money on a gift for the victims of the robbery and it in no way affects whether it is robbery or (more to the point of this topic) consensual. For example, I can steal my neighbor's car at gunpoint, and then sell it, and then use the money to buy my neighbor a lifetime supply of multivitamins, saying it's for his own health because I care for his health and want the best for him. It's still violent robbery.

What the proceeds or profits are spent on is irrelevant to whether or not the activity used to obtain those funds is consensual, meaning whether the funder gave the funds consensually (versus being coerced into non-consensually providing the funds via the threat of non-defensive violence).

[heracleitos]

Since it's done under the threat of violence (i.e. coerced), I wouldn't refer to it with the word happily.

Imagine that you are a cheetah or other big wild cat. In that case, there are at least two types of naturally-occurring violence:

(1) You run after an antelope to bite its throat with a view on closing off its wind pipe as to make it suffocate, so that you can tear its flesh apart and eat it.

(2) During the mating season, you bite off the ears and scratch out the eyes of rival males to prevent them from mounting a female in heat, because only the winner will mount her; preferably you and not the other males.

Is the cheetah happy with all that violence?

I would say: Yes, why not?

Blood has to regularly splash around in order to keep everything happy and healthy. Biology is messy. Humans are also a particularly species of biological creatures. So, in our natural state we also attack and destroy just for the hell of it. It is a regulated activity, but still necessary nonetheless. I am personally opposed to over-civilization because it damages the psychology of our natural selves.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Since it's done under the threat of violence (i.e. coerced), I wouldn't refer to it with the word happily.

Imagine that you are a cheetah or other big wild cat. In that case, there are at least two types of naturally-occurring violence:

(1) You run after an antelope to bite its throat with a view on closing off its wind pipe as to make it suffocate, so that you can tear its flesh apart and eat it.

(2) During the mating season, you bite off the ears and scratch out the eyes of rival males to prevent them from mounting a female in heat, because only the winner will mount her; preferably you and not the other males.

Is the cheetah happy with all that violence?

I would say: Yes, why not?

I don't understand the relevance of this question.

It may be worth noting that the reason I generally wouldn't use the word 'happy' to describe person who is the victim of non-defensive violence (or coercion via the threat of non-defensive violence) is precisely because they are a victim of the violence.

Your analogy would possibly be more applicable if, instead of asking whether or not the cheetah is happy, you asked if the antelope is happy. Then I would understand the relevance of the analogy.

When we consider the pacifists currently in prison because they refused to pay taxes, they are like the antelope in your analogy, not the cheetah.

When we consider the 2,000 people alleged shot to death by Governor Eduard von Liebert for refusing to pay tax, they are like the antelope in your analogy, not the cheetah.

For those people who saw the 2,000 shot and then caved and paid the tax to Governor Liebert to avoid being shot themselves, they are like the antelope in your analogy, not the cheetah.

[GE Morton]

I don't think it matters what the loot is spent on.

A gun-wielding bank robber can donate his profits to a wonderful charity. That in no way changes whether or not the way he obtained those funds was violent robbery.

In fact, the violent robber can even spend the money on a gift for the victims of the robbery and it in no way affects whether it is robbery or (more to the point of this topic) consensual. For example, I can steal my neighbor's car at gunpoint, and then sell it, and then use the money to buy my neighbor a lifetime supply of multivitamins, saying it's for his own health because I care for his health and want the best for him. It's still violent robbery.

The theft (or tax) does not benefit the victim (taxpayer) if the "gift" returned to him is worth less to him than the money stolen.

What the proceeds or profits are spent on is irrelevant to whether or not the activity used to obtain those funds is consensual, meaning whether the funder gave the funds consensually (versus being coerced into non-consensually providing the funds via the threat of non-defensive violence).

Some non-consensual (forced) payments are morally justifiable, namely, those collected to prevent free-riding.

[heracleitos]

Since it's done under the threat of violence (i.e. coerced), I wouldn't refer to it with the word happily.

It may be worth noting that the reason I generally wouldn't use the word 'happy' to describe person who is the victim of non-defensive violence (or coercion via the threat of non-defensive violence) is precisely because they are a victim of the violence.

Your analogy would possibly be more applicable if, instead of asking whether or not the cheetah is happy, you asked if the antelope is happy. Then I would understand the relevance of the analogy.

Well, which antelope is the cheetah going to single out?

The handsome elegant one that runs fast like a champion, or the obese, slow, ugly specimen that is even too lazy to actually make headway?

It's simple. Keep up or drop out. The choice is yours.

You see, generally spoken, I don't need to run faster than the cheetah. I only need to run faster than you!

As a healthy antelope, I even appreciate the cheetah's very useful services. He is a pleasant source of excitement, and he certainly cleans up the herd, so that I don't have to do that.

[Marvin_Edwards]

The U.S. constitution itself was ratified by the people of the states via directly elected representatives from the local cities and counties. So, the Constitution is an agreement between the citizens, you know, "We, The People".

That agreement specified the means of making amendments to itself by ratification of the state legislatures.

The income tax was added to the constitutional agreement via the 18th Amendment. It was ratified by the state legislatures as stipulated in the Constitution agreement.

Therefore, taxation by the Federal Government is consensual.

[heracleitos]

Therefore, taxation by the Federal Government is consensual.

Yes, that is why I believe that the ones who want to pay it, should not hesitate to freely do so.
In the end, the best definition for the term "consensual" is that each person who individually consents, can liberally go ahead with what he consents to.

[Marvin_Edwards]

Therefore, taxation by the Federal Government is consensual.

Yes, that is why I believe that the ones who want to pay it, should not hesitate to freely do so.
In the end, the best definition for the term "consensual" is that each person who individually consents, can liberally go ahead with what he consents to.

But I do not consent to paying your share as well as my own. That would be unfair to me and would give you a free ride. If you get a free ride, then everyone else would also choose the free ride, and there would be no funds for public goods, such as roads, bridges, courts, and prisons. So, your solution to the problem seems impractical.