[Astrohacker]

Agreed. I find it disturbing that other commenters in this thread would evidently use this program if they had a chance.

I can sense the downvotes already... but let me explain why this program is terrible. If I charged everyone a tax, and threatened people with violence if they didn't pay up, then everyone would recognize it was wrong. When government does it, the brainwashed masses think it's a good thing. But it is bad when the government taxes people just like it would be bad if I taxed people. It doesn't matter what the government does with the money (which is mostly wasted, but that's beside the point). It is still wrong.

To rat someone out who opts not to pay for the protection racket that is taxes is to participate in the crime of stealing their wealth. That is why this program is terrible. It converts ordinary citizens into criminals.

Government has one tool that legitimate organizations don't have: force. Because it is wrong to force people to do stuff, government is immoral. Government is therefore a criminal organization, like a scaled up version of the mafia. If these ideas appeal to you, I recommend reading the works of Murray Rothbard, in particular "For a New Liberty", but his books on economics will also set you on the right path.

[robryan]

How do you propose public services are paid for and law and order is maintained?

[yummyfajitas]

This is a minor problem, since public services make up a very small portion of government spending in the US. Most government spending is merely redistribution.

http://usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2009_US_total

[Astrohacker]

Public services would be provided by businesses like everything else. "Law and order" would be maintained primarily the way it is now, which is through social custom. But since there would still be aggressors, you would have to pay for private security. And you would probably want to carry a weapon with you.

All of these issues are discussed extensively in the libertarian literature. Murray Rothbard and Stefan Molyneux are good places to start.

[aschoen]

Perhaps public services (including the legal system) could be funded by donations instead of tax money.

[abduhl]

Should everyone be allowed to use these public services when not everyone is donating? Should you be allowed to use the police even if you haven't been donating to their budget? What if the police have two calls: one from someone who has donated and one from someone who hasn't? Who has priority?

The tax system exists to fund services that are generally not used by someone until they are needed (FEMA, Medicare, unemployment, etc.). I can honestly say I would never pay into any of these programs unless I had to and I think most people would do the same (even if they wouldn't admit to it openly).

[sliverstorm]

Yup. People love to skip out on paying for services, and then scream bloody murder when they don't get those services later when they need them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/t/no-pa...

[sliverstorm]

Your parent probably hasn't thought it out that far; your parent probably started at "gee, I don't like paying taxes" and stopped at "therefore, taxes are bad! Down with taxes!"

Alternatively, your parent could belong to the set of people who basically figure the money will just come from somewhere. They don't really care where, so long as it's someone else's money.

[georgieporgie]

government is immoral. Government is therefore a criminal organization

Well, the simplest of the logic errors there is that one. Immoral does not equal illegal. I'm not even going to get into the fact that it's not always wrong to force people to do things.

[Astrohacker]

> Immoral does not equal illegal.

I meant criminal as in immoral, not as in illegal. Obviously the government is going to declare its taxes legal.

> I'm not even going to get into the fact that it's not always wrong to force people to do things.

There are cases where it's OK to force people to do stuff, just like there are cases where it's OK to kill someone. But those cases are rare. Government employs force beyond those rare moral cases, and is therefore immoral.

[georgieporgie]

I meant criminal as in immoral, not as in illegal.

That's not what criminal means. Except in the sense of "deplorable and shocking" criminal means "of or relating to a crime." Crime means "An action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law". Crime has one non-legal definition, "An action or activity that, although not illegal, is considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong" but that's the sense applied to, for example, Apartheid, not to organized crime.

But those cases are rare.

No they aren't. I put a fence around my property to force people to go around it. It works 24x7x365. If people choose to circumvent that fence, I will personally force them to leave my property. This will happen precisely as often as people choose to bypass my fence.