Hacker News Reader

> But when you think about it, is it truly a pinnacle of humanity if good things (treating people) are achieved by doing bad things (stealing from people by threatening them with jail time and confiscation if they refuse to pay taxes)?

Calling taxation "stealing" is an odd bit of cognitive dissonance. On one hand, you embrace the law's distinction between mere dispossession and "stealing" but reject the law's distinction between "stealing" and taxation. You embrace the right of the collective to create property rights but not their right to subject those property rights to taxation.

Property rights is not a state invention. It's a concept. It wasn't invented by a bureaucrat. What state does is it provides a service of enforcing those rights for the taxes I pay. However, I cannot choose another service provider because state holds a monopoly in this regard. Even if I somehow manage to hire expensive private protection, I still have to pay the state for the service I no longer use. Therefore, they are forcing me to pay. It's extortion at best.

Without governments, your rights in the state of nature are to wield whatever weapon you can lay your hands on or to run as fast as you can so as to avoid having what you call "property" sliced out of your hands, fingers still attached, by whatever armed gang takes a fancy to it.

I'm sure stone-aged people huddled in caves hiding from axe-wielding mobs did indeed dream of "property" and a place where they'd have a "right" to it. So, sure, the state didn't "invent" property rights. They merely enable them.

I fully endorse your point. However, if we're going to go back to a time before governments, then I think we have to go back to before agriculture, when humans were hunter-gatherers that lived in tribes of around 60 or so. Within such tribes, I imagine that "property" was a relatively fluid concept, much as it is in families now.

However, based on my understanding, the situation between tribes was such that there's no point in even using a concept like "property." Encountering a person from another tribe was a life-threatening event, let alone property.

This, however, is in support of your point: government is how large groups of humans are able to live together and cooperate. The things provided through government and the rule-of-law do not come free, nor are they the default state.

My problem with calling property a "natural" or "moral" right is that it obscures a really fundamental dynamic, which is the separation of possession from the ability to defend those possessions. A separation achieved by collective force suppressing the natural dominion of the strong over the weak.[1] The lion doesn't feel moral compunction for "stealing" the hyena's kill, and why should he? He is just using his natural gifts, just as a programmer might use his natural gift of intellect.

[1] One might be tempted to invoke private security at this point, but one wonders whether, in a world without law, anybody who can defend say Mark Zuckerberg's wealth has any reason to take orders from Mark Zuckerberg, at least for very long.

A dynamic that is explored very well in the final season of Breaking Bad.

I believe the idea is that the "wrongness" of stealing is based on some moral principle, not on whether or not people and the legal system consider it wrong. Many people who believe firmly in property rights believe them to be moral rights, not rights in the sense of legislatively granted rights (rights created by the collective).

It's hence not necessarily moral dissonance. It's quite possible for someone to believe that property rights are 'natural rights', ergo stealing is wrong, but not believe people have any rights to things they didn't acquire by work or exchange, hence not view 'dispossession' as wrong.

You can only believe that if you believe you have a natural right not to be clubbed over the head and robbed blind. For that right to exist practically, somebody else has must work to provide it for you. Now you see, it is the "taxation is theft" person making the claim on someone else's labor.

>But when you think about it, is it truly a pinnacle of humanity if good things (treating people) are achieved by doing bad things (stealing from people by threatening them with jail time and confiscation if they refuse to pay taxes)?

Yes. Health for all trumps the badness of paying taxes for all.

What if there are other (and better) ways of achieving the same thing, but without state and taxation? Would you consider them?

I would not consider them. The system of taxation has worked for centuries and will continue to work. The potential benefits of the 'other and better ways' are outweighed by the cost of experimenting. Let us not re-invent the wheel.

Slavery was also prevalent in most of the world until the 19-th century. Was it a good idea too? The difference is in quality of the heist, not the nature of it: both slaves and taxpayers are robbed off the fruits of the labor. And how did you calculate exactly that potential benefits of any new ideas would be outweighed by the cost of experimenting with them?

>The difference is in quality of the heist, not the nature of it: both slaves and taxpayers are robbed off the fruits of the labor.

If you consider the government as an enemy entity, like a slave-owner yes.

If you consider the government as people you put into place as representatives, according to how the majority compromised to be governmed, to handle common affairs (and that can do a good or a bad job at it), then no.

If people thought taxes are that bad considering what they need to have in return, they'd vote somebody who promises to abolish them then.

But what if I don't want any representative? Where does that vote go? If I believed your first statement to be true, does it then follow then I'm free to not pay taxes and IRS wouldn't try to confiscate my property and jail me for not doing so?

Are you proposing an alternative?

Currently, we have two situations that have been done empirically:

- State-run insurance (seems to work)

- Free-for-all (disaster is an understatement)

Removing regulations is not the answer, since we've had to add regulations to make it cheaper. Things were worse before.

If you have an alternative, propose it. But all the evidence points to a collective system making more sense and being cheaper.

>- Free-for-all (disaster is an understatement)

If you mean the US system in which insurance companies and government were always in bed, and in which the FDA regulated the shit out of the drug market, making it necessary to spend billions to release a new drug, then I would actually agree, public healthcare is somewhat more humane.

But nowhere in the world do you have a completely free market. And I would say that's something that should happen fairly soon with the advent of Bitcoin.

To understand why regulations always make it worse for the consumer and what the alternative might be, try to imagine how a society would work without a state. That is, imagine there's no way a state and government can ever emerge. How would society organize itself. Come up with solutions. And surely you will find ways that are much more elegant and humane. These days, people see problem and their first reaction is apply government to it: "we have poor people that cannot afford healthcare, therefore government!", all the while every possible example in the world points out that only in places where government was less pervasive, poor people had more opportunities to rise and climb the ladder.

It's impossible to have a free market, because you can't opt out of going to the hospital if you're dying.

Plus insurers and doctors' interests are aligned so there's no reason for prices to go down.

Yes, except if they were rehashed "let the market do it" suggestions that never work.

Again, that's not an argument. I can say "governments never work" and 90% of the time I would be factually correct.

I understand "free of charge" to not mean "free", but rather no charge to the consumer at the point of service/care. It doesn't preclude some other funding model.

I'd argue that "access" refers to availability, free of charge or not. In other words, access to health care is quite possibly the highest in the USA. For $$$ I could get virtually any borderline necessary procedure available performed tomorrow, a level of access not available in most of the rest of the world.

> But when you think about it, is it truly a pinnacle of humanity if good things (treating people) are achieved by doing bad things (stealing from people by threatening them with jail time and confiscation if they refuse to pay taxes)?

Yes. Yes, obviously that's pretty much the definition of a healthy, mutually-supportive society, at least if you don't resort to stupid rhetorical tricks to try to paint clawing, desperate selfishness as a virtue.

And yes, before you ask, I would be delighted to shoulder a dramatically increased tax burden if I knew it meant that people I care about (and complete strangers) who are physically and mentally ill would no longer have to live and die at the whim of a suspicious and unforgiving bureaucracy. If the government could guarantee me that, I would be fucking ecstatic. I would be singing as I signed the IRS check. So forgive me if I don't find "fuck you, got mine" to be an emotionally compelling argument.

>And yes, before you ask, I would be delighted to shoulder a dramatically increased tax burden if I knew it meant that people I care about (and complete strangers) who are physically and mentally ill would no longer have to live and die at the whim of a suspicious and unforgiving bureaucracy.

Do you give much money to charity? If we assume many people are like you, and desire to help those who are sick, why aren't voluntary charities sufficient; why does the government have to take money from anyone regardless of whether or not they want to give it?

For one thing, the government is in a better position than the average charitable citizen to determine how best to distribute money. Individuals mean well, but we only see a tiny part of the national situation, and we're prone to emotional effects.

I'm not saying the government we have does a good job of this, but, for example, in the US we have disability programs that mean that disabled people with no other means of support often, eventually, get enough money to at least help them get by. If we instead relied on individual charity to handle disability, you'd have one sad photogenic white girl getting millions while thousands of equally-disabled people got nothing and starved to death.

But it is free of charge, which is what the post you're replying to actually said.

No, it's not, which is what the post you're replying to actually said.

You are paying for it, somehow, even if you are not paying an invoice every time you go to the doctor. The money is not simply created out of thin air, the doctors and nurses do not work for free out of the goodness of their hearts.

If, as the original comment suggests, no one should have to "work to survive" in any way, where is the motivation for anyone to do it? The students are already hiding so they don't have to compete for jobs in a tight job market, what's to encourage them ever to do so? At some point you run out of people working and paying those taxes so that everyone else can live for free.

Why is it taken as a necessity that everyone needs to work?

It is the default nature of human existence. If you do not work to find food, you starve. The things we work to "find" ("buy", now) have changed, but the imperative is the same.

I think the real question is why do you think it is not a necessity for you to work, while others do?

But production of goods is on rails. And accelerating. We have small legions of Zero Marginal Product workers.

Some of these folks are people with whom I used to work. There, as they say but for the grace of $DEITY...

Can't shoot 'em. But it's a pretty safe bet they can't work, at least not in a manner that is an improvement over digging holes and filling them back up.

Christ, people like you are the reason the US is still doesn't have national free healthcare. I would gladly let the government take 40% of my paycheck if it meant any and all illnesses were covered 100% free of charge for every american citizen.

In freelance hourly-rate estimates, I factor in 37% for taxes... So the combined US and state governments already take 40% of my paycheck.

And if I wouldn't? Why should your philosophy trump mine to the point where you forcibly take my money to fund it?

Let's end fuding for the massively more expensive wars of amusement before we fret over funding for health care.

Ahh, but if we ended all those wars and cut taxes to reflect the massively-decreased spending, how many more people could just afford their own healthcare?

The US has trouble paying for everything it does already, so something's got to give. Until it's one, it's got to be the other.

If by doing "bad things" (uh), we prevent more bad things or worse things from happening, then I'm going to advocate for "bad things".

As a thought experiment, why don't you think of what would happen if healthcare wasn't heavily subsidized by Governments?

I'll even make it easier for you...just compare various quality of life statistics between countries where there is quality healthcare provided to citizens by the Government (no, US doesn't qualify...Scandinavian countries do) and a country where the Government doesn't do that (US states that chose to participate in ACA Medicaid expansion qualify).

Are you a subsistence farmer? If so, society owes you nothing.

You live in a society that was built over thousands of years to allow you to earn your fabulous income. Without it, you'd have nothing. You owe all of your income to society; you're just lucky that society has decided that you work harder when you're allowed to keep some of it.

Can't tell if you are trolling or being serious.

I'm responding to one reductio ad absurdum with another reductio ad absurdum.

Saying something is absurd doesn't make it so. I'm usually willing to explain my position and to back it up with both logic and evidence. I think when you say "taxation is theft" people have a knee jerk reaction. But I don't think it's wise to disregard an argument simply because it doesn't comply with your worldview. I personally am always willing to change my opinion given that someone provides enough logic and evidence and I'd expect the same from other people. But nobody ever convinced anybody else their ideas are good by applying force and threats. If taxes were a good idea, you wouldn't need IRS.

> If taxes were a good idea, you wouldn't need IRS.

This is less logic than a catchphrase without real meaning. Turn it around: "if property rights were a good idea, you wouldn't need fences, locks, laws, police..."

Taxes, in many places today, are not created by force and threats. They're created through legal process with the consent of the population. One could argue that the need for a threat of force to make sure the entire population complies reflects a fundamental flaw in the chosen fundraising method... however, requiring unanimity will get you nowhere in terms of having a functioning society. Some decisions are hard but necessary.

> if property rights were a good idea, you wouldn't need fences, locks, laws, police

And indeed, only in crime-ridden communities you actually need to lock your doors and fence things. And who made most of the things illegal that produced those crime-ridden communities? You guessed it, the state. Besides, which places are usually most secure and locked and fenced? Again, it's state property, not private property.

> They're created through legal process with the consent of the population

Population is a very abstract collectivist term. First of all, even if the majority thinks something is a good idea it by no means should lead to other people being forced to comply. If 90% decided to shoot the rest of the 10% in the head, would you still argue it's okay to do so? Second, saying that force is required so that the rebellious minority complied is inaccurate: if you remove that threat of force, I guarantee you (and I believe that after careful consideration, you would agree with me), the majority would stop paying. Therefore, the threat of force is the major factor, not just some minor necessity.

> requiring unanimity will get you nowhere in terms of having a functioning society. Some decisions are hard but necessary.

That is a statement, not an argument. Why do you believe that only through taxation a functioning society is possible? Why is it a necessary thing? Why do we need unanimity and why can't people spend their money each as they please? I guess, a great way to try and at least think of an alternative solution would be imagine a world where having any kind of state is practically impossible (say, anyone who proclaims itself a government employee dies of a violent diarrhea on the spot) and try to think of ways a society would organize itself. I believe if you try to do it, it might lead you to some very awesome conclusions.

I don't follow your first or third paragraphs, but I feel like the second is most germane to the question of "is taxation moral," so I'll focus on that.

Here's my question to propose, instead of following the reduction to absurdity of voting to shoot people, but sticking with the majority/minority question you raise. If the majority of people in any unit of democratic government (city, state, province, whatever) truly believes that that said government should not collect* taxes, how do those taxes exist? One of the more recent examples I can think of is in Arlington, TX, where taxes were raised to contribute towards a new football stadium[0]. There's research on the books suggesting that such moves don't pay off financially for cities in the long run, as well as disputes about campaign funding[1], but somehow I imagine a truly moral issue like shooting people in the head would be a harder election to swing than one about a question of utility—pay some money, get a stadium, and all the non-financial benefits many people get from that.

*which I will also note is a quite different stance from 'will jump to pay them without any grumbling, reminders, or future coercion'

[0] http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=1914997 [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-05/in-stadium-building...

I think your question is a very smart one. Indeed, if most opposed taxation, wouldn't they simply vote against it?

The problem is, it's kind of a vicious cycle. Because state cannot exist without taxation, it is in its best interest to never bring up this question: that is, it may be okay to occasionally reduce one particular tax, but overall, the idea that taxation is extortion would simply never be raised. Therefore, much like in medieval times, people are raised to believe that they cannot survive without state (god) and that society would descend into violent anarchy without a state (people would lose their moral compass without faith in god).

Another problem is how state redefines things when it comes to taxing people. Taxes are always tied to good activities you perform, not bad activities states perform. That is, if people had to fill tax reports in which they saw "$200 for killing a bunch of kids in Iraq" instead of "$200 for selling your car" they might change their minds.

So, to sum it up: threat of force + propaganda from the young age (done in schools on that very same taxpayers money) = vicious cycle that is hard to break.

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." - Oliver Wendell Holmes.