[duncan_bayne]

sigh... do we really have to trot out the Somalia straw man every time someone criticises either compulsory taxation or socialism?

Yes, taxation is necessary for a civilised society. No, it doesn't have to be compulsory, and no, it doesn't have to fund socialism.

[coffeedoughnuts]

well if we're talking about straw men, I didn't actually say it needed to fund a political ideology of any kind. Or say anything about it being compulsory, though in fact I do think it should be.

Moreover, my comment was on the slightly silly notion that 'it's sad this is a thing now' when it has been a thing in Britain since Roman times.

Perhaps the original commentator is harking back to the good old days of pre-Roman occupation? Back when we were truly free. Never had it as good as we did ~30AD. It's gone to the dogs since then ;)

[qubex]

Time for #Romexit! Let's keep the tithes here where they belong! We can use those those gold coins to funds our own shamans!

Okay, sorry. I'll stop now.

[Cozumel]

Yeah, what did the Romans ever do for us?

[duncan_bayne]

13 million dead:

    All Punic Wars: 1.0M
    Gladiators: 1.0M
    Slave Wars (Servile Wars): 1.0M
    Cimbri-Teutoni War: 0.3M
    Social War: 0.3M
    Mithridatic Wars: ca. 0.5M
    Gallic War: 1.0M
    Juleo-Claudian Paranoia: 0.028M
    Jewish Wars: 0.4M
    Boudica's Revolt: 0.15M
    Decline and Fall: 7.0M
    TOTAL: over 13.0M

Source: http://necrometrics.com/romestat.htm

[toomanybeersies]

To be fair, that is over almost 1000 years. 13,000 per year is less than how many die each year in Mexico due to drug violence, and much less than the Syrian Civil war.

[Cozumel]

It's a Monty Python reference. /sigh

[duncan_bayne]

Yeah, I got that :) But it's also a valid question, with a valid answer.

[duncan_bayne]

Yeah that bit made no sense. But the overall sentiment certainly does.

[coffeedoughnuts]

"That bit"? That was their whole comment! I'm afraid you accused me of 'trotting out a line' when in fact the 'overall sentiment' was implied entirely by yourself.

My advice for next time - less pouncing on comments to shoe-horn in some great ideological stance. Specific discussion is better than generic argument in my book. Good day to you :)

[duncan_bayne]

This is the line I was criticising: "I suggest investigating a move to one of the functional libertarian nations with no taxes."

If I've misinterpreted you, feel free to correct me.

(Also, +1m Internet Points for your pleasant tone, sir. You are a gentleman and a scholar.)

[Angostura]

> Yes, taxation is necessary for a civilised society. No, it doesn't have to be compulsory

I think you may have to explain that to me

[lanestp]

The lottery is the best known/most common voluntary taxation. The early United States used the lottery to fund the government.

[bjelkeman-again]

Which seems like the poor primarily end up paying for. http://www.businessinsider.com/lottery-is-a-tax-on-the-poor-...

[duncan_bayne]

The necessity bit, or the not being compulsory bit?

No snark intended; I'm unsure whether you're an anarchist asking for a defence of the State, or a Statist asking for a defence of voluntary taxation :)

[richmarr]

> ...or a Statist asking for a defence of voluntary taxation

Calling the vast majority of people "statist" seems to imply a (false) equivalence between voluntary and compulsorary taxation as competing theories.

Voluntary taxation is a fringe theory with some fairly serious flaws... the primary one in my opinion being that it erodes democracy by pushing even more influence over government into the hands of people with deep enough pockets to pay more (but only when they're happy). The incentives in that kind of system would be all wrong.

By all means have a go at defending voluntary taxation, I'd be interested to hear your opinion.

[duncan_bayne]

> Voluntary taxation is a fringe theory with some fairly serious flaws... the primary one in my opinion being that it erodes democracy by pushing even more influence over government into the hands of people with deep enough pockets to pay more (but only when they're happy). The incentives in that kind of system would be all wrong.

It's a side issue to the one we're discussing, but ... that's what we have right now, and the incentives are in fact all wrong.

> By all means have a go at defending voluntary taxation, I'd be interested to hear your opinion.

So, roughly:

1) It's morally wrong to initiate force. Compelling someone to pay for something is as wrong when performed by the Government with a majority mandate, as it is when performed by a mugger.

2) Many other vital services are already paid for voluntarily, by those who benefit from them, and provided for those who can't afford them through private charity. There's nothing special or unique about Government services as opposed to, say, medicine or food.

3) Core Government services are actually pretty cheap - we worked out around NZ$2,500 / adult / year in NZ back in 2000 or so. I hope the vast majority of people would stump up that kind of cash in the absence of any other taxation. If not, I suspect that society is broken in ways that can't be fixed by compulsory taxation, either.

Rothbard goes into a bit more detail ;) here:

https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-ma...

[chimprich]

> I hope the vast majority of people would stump up that kind of cash in the absence of any other taxation.

This is, in my view, a pretty naive (maybe to be polite I should say highly optimistic) view of human nature. Even if a majority of people planned to pay it I suspect many would end up not paying it most months as other priorities intervened.

Even if, say, 60% of people did end up paying the voluntary "taxation", a large number would pay nothing. The total sum required would be the same and those willing to pay would have to pay significantly more or there would be a huge shortfall. This would be extremely unfair; freeloaders would get a huge effective pay rise and consequently more influence in society.

In practical terms it would be very difficult to pay for services if if it was not possible to predict how much tax was to be gathered from month to month. Government income would fluctuate wildly. Employment in the public sector would be very risky. The economy would be extremely volatile to say the least. Planning for the future would be next to impossible.

There are many more ethical and practical problems with this idea. I could go on.

[TheCoelacanth]

> It's morally wrong to initiate force.

Then you would agree that private property rights are immoral because they don't exist without the threat of force.

[duncan_bayne]

No, because there is a difference between _initiation_ of force, and other uses of same. See:

https://mises.org/blog/relation-between-non-aggression-princ...

[richmarr]

> I hope the vast majority of people would stump up that kind of cash in the absence of any other taxation. If not, I suspect that society is broken in ways that can't be fixed by compulsory taxation, either.

To me this is the most interesting line in your reply. There's so much bundled up in here.

First of all; the amount people will pay (and its distribution if they're allowed to nominate policies or departments to fund) would depend entirely on the decision architecture in which their decisions were made.

i.e. Exactly what information is given to citizens and when? What's the nature of their decision? What are the rules and limits? How long is the budget cycle and at what point in the year/month are they making their decision? How are citizens communicated to in the rest of the cycle? What does the broader economy look like after a couple of years of likely-reduced spending? What are the incentives acting on the media and their owners and how does that push them to influence public opinion?

Any mistakes in the implementation of that and it'd be guaranteed to fail (assuming there's any chance of success to begin with).

Secondly, although I think the output of voluntary funding decisions would be mainly a function of decision architecture, that will likely be influenced by overall trends in society. If you read recent work by Robert Putnam you'll probably be aware that the societal indicators of connectedness and social cohesion that he's compiled (things like the % of bipartisan bills, membership of clubs and societies, etc.) have been decreasing from their peak (in around 1964) and are presently on their way down to 1900-era levels. While he doesn't know the cause of that phenomenon, it seems deeply speculative that voluntary tax is the solution.

It's more likely that your desire for voluntary tax is a symptom of your mistrust of others to manage funding decisions for you, i.e. a symptom of the effect he's attempting to understand.

[arethuza]

So how would you go about acquiring evidence that this approach actually works?

[duncan_bayne]

Meta-question: do you believe that ethical decisions in politics must only proceed once someone can point to that decisions having been made in the past? That it is insufficient to point to the _wrong_ inherent to compulsion and say "let's stop this?". Would you make the same argument to abolitionists prior to the Civil War?

Leaving the issue of evidence aside, I'd generalise from the countless vital goods and services that are produced and paid for by voluntary interaction. I'd reason that since those systems work pretty well, it's reasonable to assume that Government would as well.

Then I'd spend many years heavily involved in Libertarian politics, trying to convince others to abandon the use of force against each other, only to quit in disgust when I realised that it was a waste of my time and effort, and that Tiberius' criticism of his Senate ("men fit to be slaves") rings as true today.

[danmaz74]

Not the OP, but I would be curious to know what "voluntary taxation" would mean - looks like an oxymoron to me.

[Angostura]

If it is a necessity (I think it is), it's not clear to me how it can not be compulsory.

If it's not compulsory it is charitable giving, not taxation.

[duncan_bayne]

> If it is a necessity (I think it is), it's not clear to me how it can not be compulsory.

But you wouldn't make that claim of any _other_ vital service, would you? Food, water, transport, medicine ... all these and more are provided by voluntary payment - or by charity for those who can't afford it.

What's special about Government that it requires compulsion to fund?

[vertex-four]

All those things are funded for at least some subset of the population, and heavily subsidised for the rest, by the Government. Also, I think it's pretty obvious that "voluntary payment" for healthcare didn't work for many, many people, and has resulted in thousands of deaths and significant needless pain and suffering every year.

[Angostura]

In that case you are arguing that taxation isn't necessary.

[orf]

How about you just try and reconcile both contradictory points as best you can. I bet it will be some ideological Libertarian fantasy, but please do have a go.

[duncan_bayne]

I imagine it'd be the same as every other vital service that's paid for voluntarily. Food, water, medicine, transport... none of which I think are figments of an elaborate Libertarian fantasy ;)

Perhaps you could explain why you believe the provision of Government services is an exception that requires compulsion?