pull down to refresh

Not long ago I wrote about taxation. I wrote,
Anyone who is capable of logical thought and has seriously considered taxation in relation to other forms of theft will come to the conclusion that either taxation is theft or taxation is just some other thing that they refuse to call theft.
A few years ago I had a bit of an awakening. I started to see how deeply shared lies have become in our culture. What I mean is that there are things that if pressed most people will admit are not true yet we rarely hear people admit this. They speak and accept the lie. I think we do a lot of pretending. We pretend that taxation is not theft. During this awakening I decided that I would no longer lie to myself. I would no longer use terms that are psyops. Phrases like "public schools". They are government schools. Why don't we call them that? My guess is that its because public sounds nicer. I'm not gonna be a jerk about it, but when I am using words I'm not going to use the language of propaganda.
There were several commenters objecting to my post about taxation but none of them actually had any logic or reason to contradict the statement that "taxation is theft". It all sounds like coping to me. It sounds like discomfort with the truth. They were all people rationalizing this form of theft. They were saying we have to have taxes because the current system will fail without it. How will we fund our military defense. I've read the arguments from anarcho-capitalists and they make sense to me.
They point out that in a truly free society insurance companies would likely fill many of the functions of governance that states fill today. Defense agencies would be employed by these companies. As we have seen in the last two centuries the most prosperous nations are those with the most free markets. There are other factors and I'm a aware of them but this is the short answer. My broader point is that to say that taxation is a necessary evil to maintain the status quo isn't wrong. I agree with you. I just reject that the status quo is the best we can do. I think we should be honest about what taxation is and how evil the status quo is.
When I hear people justifying taxation in this way it sounds like the same logic that was used to justify slavery. When you read the debates from the time prior to the war between the states you will see this come up. Today we rightly reject this reasoning for maintaining slavery. Slavery is morally wrong and even if its abolition risked harm to the status quo it should still be abolished. Today we know that not only is slavery morally evil, as economists have demonstrated it is actually less efficient and productive for societies as a whole.
It is my contention that we have not arrived at the ideal state of human organization. It is my contention that taxation is but one form of paying for the costs of governance. I also contend that until individuals stop lying to themselves we can never be truly free as a people. Taxation is theft. It is extortion. It is slavery. We should stop lying about it. We should stop pretending the state is good. Yes, some states are worse than others. That doesn't make the US government good. It makes it less bad. I believe we can do better. I believe that with more individual freedom we could be even more prosperous.
Democracy is but one for of human organization. Monarchists opposed it and some still do. In Democracy: The God That Failed Hans-Hermann Hoppe makes a strong case for democracy leading to larger and larger wars. One reason for this is taxation. Because democracy is the allusion of government by the people it is easier to psyop the masses into believing that taxation is not theft. It is much easier for a subject of a monarch to look at the king with disdain for his taxation to fund his wars. It is much harder to see the truth when you believe that democratic governments are "the people". I don't have all the answers but I personally refuse to lie to myself and accept taxation as morally just, or a necessary evil. It is not.
The state is evil. The state has a monopoly on violence. As I said, not all states are equal. Only a fool would believe that the DPRK is better place to live than the US. That said, we will never rid ourselves of a problem until we recognize it as such. We will never evolve to become a more just society if we do not recognize the evil that is the state.
But, if we are really gonna talk about lies we tell ourselves lets not stop at taxes. If you and I are honest, we know that the state is not really preventing us from doing most things we aren't currently doing. It is us. We are our own worst enemies. But if you are a liberty minded person it can become a crutch to blame the state for every ill in society and by connection why you haven't reached your full potential. Don't fall into this trap. If you live in a relatively free and prosperous nation you have more opportunities than most humans that ever lived. I am writing this to myself as well. I need to reach my full potential. Stop making excuses and do thing things I know I want to do. The things that will make an impact on my life and those that I care about.
Tell the truth to yourself. Stop speaking lies. It is corrosive.
this territory is moderated
Recently had a conversation with the wife.
(She doesn't get involved with politics) I asked her if she thought that government should be big small or in the middle. She described the need for social programs to help the less fortunate but not too much government intervention.
TheWildHustle thought for a moment.....then told her "That makes you a democrat, that's nice, and everyone is entitled to their own political opinion, and its understandable to want to help those that are less fortunate". She looked at me a little puzzled and asked "And let me guess, you believe in no government right?". Hustle responded "Yep". She then asked "Well who's gonna (looked up into the air and tried to think about something) who's going to manage the money?"
reply
She described the need for social programs
"You either survive in the jungle or exist in the zoo."
who's going to manage the money?"
He who holds the private key.
reply
The two biggest social programs are social security and Medicare. These are not programs for the less fortunate.
reply
I'm guessing you had an answer in the chamber for that one.
reply
Every culture has its own lies. China cant seem to grow because they are afraid it will effect their "face". Face has no value, its just a lie to control the general public. They save "face" then turn around and have no morals. How can society be so hypocrytical?
reply
Outstanding!
I've been thinking about something similar that will be relevant (I think) for my next "Tough Questions for Libertarians" post. It goes in a slightly different direction though. I was thinking about the undue confidence people have when just repeating approved talking points. It's a pet peeve of mine, because I feel incredibly irritated that those people don't realize that I've heard their talking point already and rejected it for a better argument.
As an aside, I suggest substituting "mass murder campaign" for "war". "War" is another one of the state's magic words that "justifies" unspeakably evil unjust behavior. Imagine if a criminal fled from the police and hid in a school full of children, so the cops just blew up the whole school. Would any of us accept the stupid "human shield" justification? No! Say the magic "war" incantation though and all of a sudden murdering a bunch of innocent kids is ok.
reply
Great analogy with the human shield.
reply
I got it from Dave Smith. Even as someone who was already staunchly antiwar it made me reevaluate just how deeply inherently evil this statist construct is.
reply
Ah, good ole Dave. Respect.
reply
74 sats \ 1 reply \ @davidw 25 Mar
If this post resonates, you're going to love the book called The Market For Liberty summarised here #288076.
There are many traps in the semantics of our language. 'Public schools' is a new one. Another is referring to government with a big G. As if deserving additional status / credibility / authority. Thankfully you avoided that trap here.
I also mentioned in my SN post about The Four Horseman documentary today (which annoyingly discusses an alternative substitute taxation system), that we do indeed live in a plutocracy not a democracy. From wikipedia:
A plutocracy (from Ancient Greek words 'wealth' & 'power') or plutarchy is a society that is ruled or controlled by people of great wealth or income.
reply
Zapped. Thanks for that recommendation, there seems to be also audio version of 6h+ for that book in YT as book is long, who is interested.
reply
I zapped you once, and then I read it and zapped it a few more times. Right on.
reply
Thanks
reply
GOV: We need your taxes to pay for the government Also GOV: Oh, we don't have enough money, we'll just print more.
reply
They point out that in a truly free society insurance companies would likely fill many of the functions of governance that states fill today. Defense agencies would be employed by these companies. As we have seen in the last two centuries the most prosperous nations are those with the most free markets.
If you play that scenario out, you will see that still a quasi-state will emerge.
  • Market efficiencies will demand that there be "standards" that insurance companies will impose (eg. how would insurance companies vet and select police forces if not by a minimum set of standards). This will go for nearly everything from food safety to fire fighting....
  • There will need to be reciprocation agreements between the insurance companies at some level. If my house is insured by Company A and yours by Company B, our respective companies will need to accept that they each use acceptable fire fighting standards....otherwise if my companies fire fighting standards are shoddy it threatens your house. Again this forces a common set of "fire fighting" standards to be imposed on the market.
  • Further, HOA's (Home Owners Associations) would become much more prevalent and those would come with their own standards and insurance requirements. Those HOA would themselves (via their insurance companies) push towards "governance standards".
  • The standards bodies that create such rules will themselves become 'political' entities. I don't mean political in the sense of D vs R, I mean many forces will lobby to get their representatives appointed to these standard bodies. It will become every bit as tense and "political" as we see now, with the same innuendo, bribes, and propaganda techniques used now to influence rule making.
  • The rules issued by these standards bodies will become de-facto laws. Sure you are free to not abide by the standards, but the practical impacts will be severe.
To be clear, I am pro the ideas you espouse, I'm just pointing out that the net effect of AnCap played out to its logical conclusion will result in a world that is practically indistinguishable from a "small government / states rights" model.
reply
I agree with you with a caveat. The small government winds up being a centralized large government. State rights end up being trampled. What you describe is logical but also would lack two powerfully negative forces. The quasi religious belief in an entity that has a monopoly on the use of violence. And the empires that commit mass murder fueled by the quasi religious patriotic passion. We really can't rid the world of the human flaws that exist but we could try to build decentralized systems that account for them.
But this was one example. My point is about lies we pretend to believe.
reply
The small government winds up being a centralized large government.
I agree. A small govt model will lead to economic success, which then will result in a very attractive target for those who want to consolidate power. Additionally, the "good times and small gov" will lend itself to a populace that is not inherently anti-state (after all the state is pretty good now). Thus, they will be susceptible to being persuaded to increase size of gov.
I think this is a continuous natural process, something like the business cycle, but here its the "governance cycle". A play on the "4th turning" idea:
Small Gov -> Good Times Good Times -> Big Gov Big Gov -> Hard Times Hard Times -> Small Gov
reply
It was easier to have small government and federalism before 1913:
Federal reserve act
Income Tax amendment
Popular election of senators
Scalia said popular election of senator killed federalism and states rights
reply
Wait... when do we go to small government? Do you mean after collapse? Do you have an example?
reply
43 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 25 Mar
Yes, I think after the collapse we go back to less centralized gov.
Look at USSR transition -> Russia (I know Russia is not "free" and not "small gov", but decidedly less authoritarian than old Soviet system).
reply
For sure Russians today are better off than those living under communism. I'd be shocked if you could find a Russian that would disagree with that. So not really small gov but better and smaller.
reply
America πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ isn't a democracy. It's a republic.
reply
I used to repeat this. Its a lie. The US is both. Most importantly, it is an empire which is one of its biggest issues.
reply
Democracy is 4 wolves 🐺 and a lamb πŸ‘ deciding on lunch
reply