(September 18, 2013 at 11:14 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: A good point. In such a scenario, more of my tax money would be spent on funding the Christian agenda and meanwhile much of my liberty, which civilization is supposed to protect, would be taken away. This is why a representative system is so important. A government, to be legitimate, must balance following the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority (the latter usually done in the courts, prompting conservatives to whine about "judicial activism" but that's another topic). A government that doesn't do so loses some of it's legitimacy. Lately, simple-minded conservatives have been putting on tri-corner hats and pretending they are the successors to the "Tea Party", forgetting that it's not taxes that we rebelled against but taxation without representation.
Quote: [example of someone living in the wild] - do you think he'd be exempt from paying taxes?
He probably wouldn't end up paying taxes just from being "under the radar". He wouldn't have an income nor would he, living off the land in the wild, have any recorded property. Unfortunately for him, he'd have no recourse if a developer came along to the land he was living on and purchased it.
You are missing the point here. These examples were given to highlight the principle behind taxation. Consider whatever assumptions that need to be made for the question of taxation to even arise as given.
In principle, only the legitimate government has the right to levy taxes. Therefore, let's assume that after his coup, Bush took whatever legal, political or judicial means necessary to have his government declared as legitimate. Because without it, his government wouldn't be in a position to impose taxes. Also, remember that representative democracy is only one form of legitimacy. So, if it makes it easier for you to imagine, consider the case of a Somalian warlord who gets enough gun-power to eliminate his rivals and establishes a tyrannical government. Given no challenges to his authority, even that government would be regarded as the legitimate government with the right to impose taxation without any representation.
Similarly, in the second example, assume that the authorities are aware of the recluse - given that he has legally purchased the parcel of land, signed an affidavit legally relinquishing the benefits of civilized society and is willing to stipulate that the equivalent monetary value of the produce of his land and farm animals may be regarded as his income.
In both cases we have a legitimate government imposing taxes and the tax-payees who don't receive much in the way of benefit of living in civilized society. And my point here is that if your view of taxation - that it is the quid pro quo in return for governmental services provided - was correct, then these people would have a legal justification for not paying taxes, given that they are not availing themselves of those services. However, currently, that is not the case. But it should be.
(September 18, 2013 at 11:14 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: I'm not against having a discussion on what we should or shouldn't be doing with our tax money and, sooner or later, our government's financial problems may force that discussion to happen. America maintains a costly empire that I think we could do without and the rest of the world might be happy to see recede. We're still running in the "arms race" as if the Cold War were still going on because corruption in DC and the military-industrial complex won't allow it to end. Corruption is so much a part of American politics that it's done out in the open (it's called "lobbying") with rules in place for what constitutes good corruption from bad corruption. I didn't mean to suggest a rose-colored view of our current arrangement. Far from it. But what Koolaid would replace it with would only create a power-vacuum that already overpowered corporations would fill.
I think we both agree that the only way Koolay's "vision" would end is in a hundred year gang-war between the remnants of old military, various criminal organizations and whichever corporations have enough security forces to survive the initial chaos. And the only people willing to live in such a society would be extreme right-wing gun-nuts who think they already live in such a society.
However, my argument was not specific to the US. I was arguing that government - any government - should be run more like a corporation with the country's population as its stockholders - albeit, one with monopoly in specific areas. The primary function of this "corporation" would be ensuring basic civil rights, maintaining law and order, providing basic civic amenities etc. and here it should have monopoly and for which it is being paid in taxes. Any profits from these and other ventures may be disposed of as the government sees fit - such as investing in social security or healthcare or rural development.
(September 18, 2013 at 11:14 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: I'll buy that. Our political discourse in my country, particularly from our right wing, has gotten so shrill that we're redefining a lot of labels. "Socialism" to some here means any government regulation or safety net at all. "Libertarian" may also be an abused term for those here who are in fact promoting the corporate agenda. The Koch brothers describe themselves as "libertarian" if that tells you anything.
Yeah, I'm getting that. Which is why, keep in mind, when in future I refer to myself as a Libertarian, I'm in no way agreeing with people like Paul Ryan.
