The Political Thread

[Funt Solo]

Back when I believed, as you do

Back when I believed in government and its processes, I meant.

I've got adjectives for this: stupid and insulting, in about equal measure. The very notion that you can separate people out into those that "believe in government and its processes" and those that don't is - well, there's no kind way of putting it - it's moronic. It doesn't even bother to define terms properly. It's foolishly muddy and it's not ever going to go anywhere but dumber. All I can think is that you're the guy in The Untouchables who brought a knife to a gun fight. A blunt, rusty one.

Just to dip our toes in the water: I do believe in government, because government exists. I do have faith in some governmental structures - like free-at-point-of-access libraries paid for through a taxation system. I don't blindly have faith in all governmental types. I don't believe anything the Chinese government says, because they lie as a matter of course. I don't love Biden, but he's better than the corn-hole they elected last time.

The idea that you can slot me into a binary "do/don't" belief system in such a complex topic is - back to the beginning -  stupid and insulting, in about equal measure.

[The Legendary Shark]

I didn't separate "people" into two camps, I set myself in a different camp to yourself and those with a similar core belief. That widespread core belief is basically that government has the right to command and the responsibility to control, whereas I believe that (in whatever form) it has the right to advise and the responsibility to organise.

You may not agree with the Chinese government (or indeed your own), and wish for better, but I suspect you firmly believe that China (and your country) must have one, regardless of its quality. It is in this sense that I attribute to you a belief in government - not in its existence but in its rights and in its utility.

I, on the other hand, believe that societies need organisation for their support services and infrastructure - and that, crucially, these tasks do not justify violence or unlawful acts of any kind. Stealing money and calling it taxation is not morally acceptable to me, irrespective of what it funds. I can't go around stealing from people because I want to buy my neighbour's medicine for him or pave my other neighbour's garden path and then calling what I do taxation. It's theft. If I beg for the money, or work for the money, then I can fund my neighbours if I so desire.

This is where I am often called a Utopianist or something, and quizzed for solutions - to which I can only proffer suggestions. But forget the solutions for now. I don't even know whether compulsary taxation is something anyone would be interested in discussing, it's been around for so long and done so much good that maybe it doesn't need discussing. It is of great interest to me, though.

As a person who believes in the state, do you believe it has the right to demand taxes and punish anyone who refuses?

My answer is, of course, no. Firstly because it is fundamentally theft, secondly because I have no control over how my own money will be spent and whether such spending aligns with my personal morality, and thirdly because if I don't have the right to steal then I cannot create this right and award it to the people I vote for, no matter what they spend it on. That's my view of the problem, which is merely a symptom of the deeper malaise.

So it's not really the belief in the utility of government I'm questioning - I'm sure it could be organised to do many things well - but belief in its right to power. I suppose another way of putting it would be, should governments uphold or enforce? Both? Neither?

You're right, it's not an entirely binary thing but there are, I think, certain binary choices hidden amongst the complexity.

[Funt Solo]

It's like a game of pin the tail on the donkey, but you keep moving the donkey and telling people they've lost.

[The Legendary Shark]

Lost what? I thought this was a conversation, not a competition.

[Funt Solo]

A. Bananas!
B. You just said "bananas".
A. But what I meant was peaches.
B. So, "peaches"?
A. You only think that's what I said - this is actually about fruit in general.
B. So we're discussing fruit?
A. This isn't a discussion, it's a friendly round table.
B. You have a round table?
A. Tables are just one aspect of the wider conspiracy.
B. [shoots self in head]

[Modern Panther]

You're wasting your time.

[The Legendary Shark]

Yes, I think I am.

[IndigoPrime]

The notion that taxation is theft just baffles me. The most progressive politicians around are in favour of taxation, as a means to share the load. The English & Welsh Green Party's platform is primarily one of a society underpinned by UBI, eco-friendly power, and where we transition to a shorter work week due to automation. They're anti-war, anti-whip, anti-nuclear, pro-representation, etc. Their plans are costed and broadly viable. Funding for what they need would have to be via taxation. But you'd still call that theft.

In a sense, I suppose this is the gulf between liberal socialist thinking (theirs/mostly mine) and libertarian thinking (yours). They would use taxation to fund a society much closer to the one you'd like to see. You'd presumably argue that's theft and not want any part of it, unless people could only opt-in to taxation—at which point, we end up back in that circular argument of: but they wouldn't/yes, but I'd hope they would.

Also, reliance on charity for core components of society is, from a contemporary economic standpoint, the preserve of the far right. It's that mindset of what's mine is mine and I should never be compelled to share unless I choose to. So although I don't think that's your leaning, it's a very odd thing to hear you often using the same arguments. (And similarly regarding things like COVID.)

[Funt Solo]

At the core of the obtuseness of the debate, I think, is that there are already terms in place in the language that do a good job: theft, taxation and charity.

Saying that theft is equal to taxation is incorrect (and therefore misleading). And using "voluntary taxation" in place of charity is doing a disservice to the language.

We have words for the three things, and they're three different things.

---

Similarly, there's an attempt to say something like "I don't believe in government - instead we should have a government!" Which doesn't make sense.

Look:

societies need organisation for their support services and infrastructure

Oh, you mean a government?

---

Which leads to the tail-on-the-donkey metaphor. Because even the terms of the debate can't be trusted.

[The Legendary Shark]

A human being takes your money without your permission = theft.

A government takes your money without your permission = taxation.

Governments are made of human beings, so where does the alchemy happen? At what point does taking someone's stuff without their permission and hurting them if they resist go from unlawful theft to lawful taxation? At what point does a group of human beings extorting money become a government redistributing wealth?

"Tax is theft" is nothing in itself, just a symptom of the violence inherent in the system. It's that inner violence I oppose, the state's supposed sole right to it and its use.

We can do better. We must, I don't think the orang-utans got time to wait for us to get our shit together.

One last time, Funt, government is not the same as organisation. I do not want to abolish organisation. Organisation is a Good Thing. Human beings are social animals with big brains, organisation is what we do and we're very good at it. But government is not the same thing. Government is enforced organisation. Of all the things that government is supposed to do, the only aspect of it I would remove is its right to initiate violence, to put it on the same footing, and under the same law, as the rest of us.

Take away their power to fuck things up and you can vote Trumps and Johnsons in to your hearts' content and just sit back and enjoy the show.

[Tiplodocus]

Well no. I understand the need for taxation and am happy to pay it even though I know some money goes to things I don't like. So there is absolutely no equivalence there apart from a cheap joke.

[The Legendary Shark]

I do not want one penny of my money to go towards warfare, even if that means I have to forfeit my privileges - many of which I have.

I actually do my best to live by this shit, and it's not bloody easy, I can tell you. But, by Grud, it's worth it.

[Funt Solo]

A human being takes your money without your permission = theft.

Agreed.

A government takes your money without your permission = taxation.

Disagreed. First of all, it's with our permission, in the case of a democracy. In the case of theft, there's no sense in which you know how your money will be spent, and no benefit planned for you or society at large. In the case of taxation, they build roads and shit. (I know they also do things one might not like, like bomb people - but that's why the democracy bit should be used. Or, if you're more of an ursine activist, guillotines.)

---

Theft and taxation are not the same thing. It's simple thinking to say otherwise.

[Tjm86]

A government takes your money without your permission = taxation.

I do feel like this is a bit of a historical aberration.  By this I mean that the idea dates back to a time when taxation was all about the crown taking what they needed for their own purposes.

Over the course of the last century the state has grown to include health care, education and social security as well as those objectives that have historically been pursued. 

Personally I would argue that this is the true price of a civil society.  There is a collective contribution towards a common good.  Education is available to all for instance as it is paid for out of general taxation.

Arguing that the monies are taken without permission is a little problematic.  Certainly there is little control over this.  That said there are still democratic mechanisms available to challenge it (albeit of variable quality).

Personally I'm in the "no man is an island" camp.  I feel that there is a case to be made for providing support for the most needy since it benefits all of us.  Also, none of us can be sure that we won't find ourselves there.  We have a moral responsibility to support our fellow 'man' (however they define themselves).

I have major problems with government policy that channels this in inappropriate ways.  Arguably over the last 20 odd years this has become an ever increasing problem, from outsourcing on.

Ultimately though, as a social democrat and idealist, I would rather contribute a portion of my earnings to the 'common good'.  [that said, I do have problems as well with the fact that 'labour' is more heavily taxed than capital]

[The Legendary Shark]

Funt; 51% of the population vote to take £10 each from the other 49%. That may be democratic, but it's still theft. The government is elected on the promise of tax cuts, but taxes are raised. Again, democratic but still theft. Democracy, then, does not transform theft.

TJM, there is no doubt that spreading the cost of civilisation is extremely helpful, but I question the need for it to be enforced by the barrel of a gun. The problem is that the enforcers come to see this contribution as theirs to control. Thus we get obscene banker bailouts that divert resources from more tangible things like homelessness, hospitals, and hostels.

But there are more radical solutions which would do away with the need for taxation as we know it and still keep the lights on. These solutions involve altering the processes of money creation and application, and removing the current galactically profitable banking franchises. That will not be easy, so I'll settle for taking violence out of the equation for now.

After all, if you had the chance to opt-in to a taxation system if the government's doing a good job, and to opt out if it isn't, would you do that? I think it would be a better application of democracy, and certainly more powerful. (Thanks to Funt for suggesting the idea.)