[scudco]

I know this might rile a few people up, but I think voting is coercive. Personally, I don't see myself ever participating in a vote unless I know everyone involved in its consequences is a consenting individual. So I respectfully disagree that it is my duty or anyone's duty to participate in a coercive vote. http://is.gd/3WIh

[krakensden]

You seem confused. The purpose of government is to have a stable group of muggers who behave themselves, not to make you guilt-free.

/You/ can never legitimize or de-legitimize the state, only its citizens in aggregate can. Which is why voting is so handy, you get to de-legitimize a state without all that nasty killing.

I don't understand grand visions of a world built entirely of nice people. Someone will always figure out that they can be top dog by being 10% more asshole than everyone else, and then you're back to the start- building a society around coercion and limiting assholes and useful shortcuts to revolution.

Public schools may not be the best, but you may have missed some important life lessons by skipping out.

[olavk]

For better or worse, US have a lot of coercive power around the world, and your choice of president can make a big difference for a lot of people who have no say in the election.

So as a non-american I tell you that it is your goddam duty to get informed and vote.

You may not like to vote, but you have to. It's like watching a car crash about to happen and you have the ability to prevent it - sure it infringes on your personal freedom to mind you own business, but it's your duty to do something anyway.

[jobeirne]

As an American, it is my right to be able to choose not to vote.

[olavk]

OK, I suppose it's probably for the best if you don't vote.

[jobeirne]

Oh trust me, I did. But it sure as hell wasn't for your sake.

[dejb]

You wouldn't like Australia then. Voting is compulsory. You would risk a $20 fine (or having to come up with a good excuse) if you don't vote. Orwellian maybe, but they do have sausage sizzles and cake stalls which most people seem to like.

[laut]

And expensive, capped, government controlled internet. Which the government wants to add an extensive government firewall to. And logging/surveillance of which websites people visit.

But who want's freedom when you can have sausages? ;)

[dejb]

> And expensive, capped, government controlled internet.

Geographic reasons for the capped and expensive internet. Long undersea cable to the US. Historically we have paid for traffic both to and from the US.

Government controlled? How? At least we can still play poker online or bet on the US elections. What restrictions do you mean?

> Which the government wants to add an extensive government firewall to.

Yep this would suck but it's not operating yet and can still be stopped.

> And logging/surveillance of which websites people visit.

Um no. You'd be thinking of the NSA there mate.

> But who want's freedom when you can have sausages? ;)

I'd welcome a legitimate comparison of the virtues of the Australian as opposed to the US system of democracy.

[parenthesis]

I think that voting should be compulsory, but with a 'none of the above' option.

[netcan]

In Australia it is.

[tjmc]

My mother once wrote to them "I think compulsory democracy is a contradiction in terms" Clever, but they still fined her.

[lutorm]

As they should have. ;-)

Democracy is not the right to do as one pleases, it's a way of running society. As such it's perfectly reasonable for a democratic society to decide that the privilege of citizenship comes with responsibilities, one of which being the requirement to vote. It's no different from deciding that stealing is illegal, if the populace disagrees they can make it an election issue and push the "non-compulsory voting" issue.

[Brushfire]

Thats all fine and good -- but what if you dislike all of the choices? In other words, you are saying I should be forced by the government to spend time out of my day to go somewhere to complete a write-in vote for people who likely wont win? Alternatively, if you read reports -- some district ALWAYS go a certain direction (liberal/conservative/etc). So if you are a liberal in a district that has gone conservative for 80+ years... whats the point

I think this is counterproductive. If people don't want to have their voice heard, then they should not be forced. Those who are willing/able/eager to vote, shall, and those who arent, have no excuse to bitch about the results.

My point is not that the above are always sound arguments for an individual to not vote, but that we should never be forced to do anything by our government. If I want to sit at home and not be part of the system, well thats my fucking right. And that right is paramount, in my opinion, to any 'right' society claims that I should be involved in it. What can I say, I'm a libertarian.

[potatolicious]

I agree people should not be forced to vote - if anything that will simply make MORE ill-informed votes. That being said, if you're a liberal in a conservative district, vote, make your voice heard. My district in the last Canadian election was conservative by a slim 80 votes, and you can be sure the new guy won't be doing anything overly conservative - his hold on the majority is tenuous at best and he knows it.

A failure to vote in this circumstance will simply hand the candidate a landslide, and a de facto approval to do whatever the hell he wants.

[lief79]

That didn't seem to bother Bush.

[jwilliams]

Indeed... I've had a few arguments about whether it should be compulsory or not... If this is some kind of infringement on personal liberties and such.

Whichever side I've argued on (and I've tried either) - generally everyone agrees that having the vast majority of the population vote is a good idea, and "works" on whatever level you want to define that.

[sd]

If you think the American government is coercive, then imagine what would transpire in its absence. Regardless, voting reduces the coercive power of the state by affording citizens the right to change government.

[tlrobinson]

By remaining in your country and paying taxes you've bought into the "system" that most of us accept as a pretty good one. You're free to emigrate somewhere else if you don't like it. I don't see anything "coercive" about that.

[scudco]

What if I chose to remain and not pay taxes. Am I then free to live peacefully and not be a part of the state? Essentially, what happens when I peacefully non-comply?

[krschultz]

No because you are a leach off the state. Did you go to public school here? Have you ever been to a hospital? Driven on a road? Used our power grid? Used the internet?

Of course you have, so "living peacefully" in the country is about as OK as some guy I don't know "living peacefully" in my basement. Sure, he isn't hurting me, but that doesn't mean he isn't a thief. And while you try to call taxes theft, the idea that you would not pay taxes but still enjoy the services the government gives (no matter how hard you try, you can not escape present or past use), is definitely theft. The fact that you try to make yourself sound innocent by ensuring you won't kill anyone doing THEIR job is laughable. Is it ok to rob a bank as long as you do it peacefully?

[scudco]

Am I leeching off the state or is the state leeching off its citizens? I did not go to public school, but the state still told my school what they must teach to be considered legitimate. I have been to a hospital. I have driven on a road in a car, on a motorcycle, on a moped, on a bicycle and I have even walked on roads. I am using the PG&E power grid as I type this. And, of course, I am using the internet to respond to your post.

I replied to this kind of thinking in another post in this comment thread, but I do not have a choice in the matter as to whose roads I use if I wish to go from place to another because they are monopolized by government. I would like it if the government did not have monopoly control over things, but I do not deny that they have control. It may be of some consolation to you that I pay and have paid taxes in the past. The government, in my mind, is simply "a gang of thieves writ large" as Murray Rothbard once said. They provide services but they can only do so by monopolizing the service they provide and _taking_ other peoples money to finance the administration of that service.

If you can rob a bank peacefully I would very much like to see that for the sake of argument.

[krschultz]

The roads were not always a government monopoly, nor were the canals, nor the railroads. All had some government support but they were not run by the government. But at some point it became clear that this was a FAILURE. Without roads and rails and at one point, canals, this countries economy would not function. Sure you can make some high traffic routes private and run them better, I would love that. The fact that I-95 is under construction, and they only work 8 hours a day 5 days a week while inconveniencing me anytime of day is something that no private business would do because they would lose customers. But look at the inability to get broadband in rural areas - it is significantly cheaper to run fiber than to build a road, and you can't even get that done.

So yes, you could avoid paying taxes, but at the expense of losing more than 30% of your revenue as the economy crumbled. I can understand the principle, but pragmatically what you want to do is a pipe dream and economically it will be WORSE for you monetarily. I understand standing on principle on the 1st amendment or torture or policy, but when we start talking dollars and cents, your ideas just don't hold water.

[tlrobinson]

Are you advocating anarchy then?

"They provide services but they can only do so by monopolizing the service they provide and _taking_ other peoples money to finance the administration of that service."

I just don't get this. How do you expect them to pay for services? And let's not forget that "the government" isn't some magic entity, it's made up of the citizens of the country itself. I'm pretty sure the US government employs more citizens than any other organization in the US.

I would say that many of the services and infrastructure the government typically provides are considered "natural monopolies". It doesn't make sense to have a bunch of parallel roads when you can have one. Same with water, electricity, etc. With the government providing a single "set" of infrastructure you may need X miles of road, pipe, power lines, or whatever, if you had 4 companies competing you would need 4 times as much, which would end up costing the end user 4 times more.

But in fact, the government doesn't have a complete monopoly on roads, since there are privately owned toll roads, which you have to pay to drive on. Would you prefer all roads were privately owned, and the owners could then charge arbitrarily high tolls?

[tlrobinson]

Well, you could always move to remote cabin in Montana.

And mail bombs to people.

[tlrobinson]

I was serious, excluding the Unibomber reference. Isolating yourself and living off the land is the closest you're going to get.

You won't be consuming any of our tax-funded services, and you won't be contributing to our economy or paying taxes (assuming no property tax?)

Beyond that, the people inside these borders have decided this is how we want things to work, and (as I mentioned) if you don't like it you're free to give up your citizenship and move somewhere else.

[wheels]

Actually you're not. The US won't let you go stateless and even makes it complicated to renounce your US citizenship after you've gotten a second one. Usually it takes many years to be eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

Not that I think it's terribly relevant...

[Retric]

There are millions of people living in the US today that have no legal right to be here. You can live like they do off the "grid" but you will make less money and have less security.

[lutorm]

That link makes no sense to me. Not that I'm saying this particular system we are talking about is perfect, far from it, but what's the alternative? How would you like society to make decisions? After all, any society must necessarily make decisions affecting those who do not have a say, like infants and people yet to be born. Surely it's better if as many as possible of those affected have a say? (Personally, I'd like the entire world to have a vote in the US election because of its far-reaching effects, but I don't think that delegitimizes the system... entirely. ;-)

If you feel oppressed by the US democratic system, you could always apply for asylum in a country that you think better runs according to your values...

[scudco]

What if I want to simply secede from the government entirely?

To your final point, though, I find this talk of emigration strange. Many people ask me this question and I concede that it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility for me. However, am I not petitioning for the same thing a voting population is? The difference I see is that I do not want to affect change through the apparatus of the state because I find it illegitimate. Instead I will try to affect change through non-violent means. I'll speak with you and try to convince you that non-violence is the way toward a peaceful and sustainable society. I will not use the barrel of a gun personally or by proxy(the police) to tell you or anyone else what to do. I will not get together with my friends to vote on what you must and mustn't do.

Be peaceful.

[krschultz]

Great in theory, but you can't secede from the effects of government. Lets say that you built a farm and where completely self sustaining. You never went out for anything, never put your waste onto the populace's sewer system. You never went out for healthcare, or drove on the public's roads, or used any technology funded by the government. What about the education you received at the tax payers expense? What about the past medical care you got as a child that you will never repay. Your theory is so irrational as to be impossible.

[yummyfajitas]

If this person's parents had more than the median income, they almost certainly paid enough in taxes to cover their child's education. They probably also paid for his/her health care.

The value provided by the government is merely the sum of all taxes paid - overhead/waste/corruption. Some people (the rich) get less back than they put in, some (the poor) get back more than they put in. So anyone who is sufficiently rich (1) has probably already repaid any debt they owed to society, and can legitimately secede.

(1) I ignore for the moment people who got rich from rent seeking, e.g. defense contractors, trial lawyers or members of public sector unions.

[wheels]

There have been some things that get pretty close. Kibbutzs in Israel simulate much of the "live peacefully with neighbors" but they tend towards collectivism.

The problem with going whole-hog anarchism is that on any significant scale (even a couple hundred people) peer-to-peer trust breaks down and anything that steps in to make processes more streamlined and reliable or introduces organizational structure becomes functionally equivalent to a government. We rely to such a huge extent on specialization of labor and trust of abstractions that such freedom doesn't scale if one expects modern amenities.

[enomar]

You pay taxes though, right?

[scudco]

Out of fear of being murdered, yes. Honestly, this may sound like an exaggeration to prove a point, but I honestly pay taxes to save myself from certain death. But I am glad you asked because I am interested in not paying federal taxes next year. Instead of simply keeping the money for myself, however, I want to calculate what the federal government would like to rob from my wages and giving it away to charity. If you're interested in doing something like this with me let me know.

[breily]

I think I'm as libertarian as anybody, but I fail to see a connection between not paying taxes and being murdered by the government. Obviously there are consequences to not paying taxes, but those would be fines/jail time, not certain death. Could you explain a little more?

[scudco]

Fines or jail time are merely the better alternative once one has decided to non-comply. If one nonviolently non-complies with the state's demands to pay taxes they will likely fine her. If she refuses to pay the fine they will likely come knocking with armed men. If she further refuses the authority of the armed men to arrest her then the only recourse that the state has is to perform an act of aggression against her. It is true that they might drag her to jail--subduing her, a non-violent person, in the process. This is hardly what I would call humane. Anyways now she is in jail and still believes the state to have no authority over her. What recourse does she have to get out without capitulating to the state's authority over her? If she attempts escape she will be severely punished or killed. It is easier for her to fall in line and listen to the state than disobey simply because the consequences of choosing alternatives are much, much worse.

Her death could actually happen a variety of ways but I only wanted to go off the example you mentioned. If you need further clarification I mention this topic and how it relates to voting here http://is.gd/3WIh

I don't want to go to jail. What is the alternative to spending years in jail? Paying 30% of my income? It is better than prison, but we ought to call this act of aggression what it really is--theft. Tax is simply a euphemism for theft, in my mind. And not to derail the topic you mentioned, but I would ask you to consider what good taxes have ever done besides making powerful people more powerful and financing wars where we justify the killing of innocents for some elusive greater good.

Thanks for your question.

[krschultz]

Roads, airports, the internet, at a minimum, not to mention many other technologies. Taxes bought the rest of this country after the initial settlement. Taxes save thousands of people who otherwise would not be able to pay for medical care.

Although if you want to save 30% on taxes, and let thousands of innocent people who do not have as much money as you die at the doors of a hospital they can't afford - you can definitely keep the righteous tone you have going without one hint of irony.

Taxes are a necessary evil, the only question is to what extend we should tax ourselves.

[potatolicious]

Honestly, the GP sounds like an antisocial anarchist, of the sociopathic variety. Just because he's made a good life for himself he is completely unable to empathize with the less fortunate, nor is he able to comprehend how significantly services provided by taxation have contributed to his presumptive success.

He is also unable to comprehend how the fabric of society functions. We all necessarily give up our freedom of total choice in exchange for the opportunity to live peaceably amongst one another. This is the fundamentals of democracy - that decisions are made jointly, and that whatever the decisions may be, people will abide by them (or challenge them in a structured, organized way).

[APLonDrugs]

Roads in Illinois and most of the USA, before Lincoln’s system of spoils were actually private toll roads. In fact, most of the early days of government internal improvement projects, while having serious competition from the private sector, mostly were examples of failure. Perhaps it is far easier to make a case why you/we must be mugged, by the powers that be for some social good then it is to make a case for freedom, in all forms.

“Taxes are necessary evil”… I conceive the idea that this is like 1+1=3

[tlrobinson]

They'll throw you in jail, only if you're a citizen (you have certain rights and responsibilities with that citizenship).

If you're not a citizen they'll deport you and you can be on your merry way finding another country that will let you do what you want.

You could always give up your citizenship...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/17/news/expat.php

[andreyf]

If you stop paying taxes, will you also stop using public roads, public transport, FDA-tested food and drugs, airplanes flown by ex-airforce pilots, internet protocols developed by DARPA, etc, etc? Or do you want to just leech off the things other people's taxes pay?

[scudco]

Do I have a choice? Aren't all(if not most) of the things you've mentioned government-controlled monopolies?

More to the point, though, I want these services, but I think it is wrong to take money from people to finance these services. If you and I both agree that roads, food and drug testing, transportation, etc. are worth paying for then let us get together and pay for them ourselves. However, we ought not take money from people who don't want these services simply because we do. Voting specifically obscures this moral dilemma because it is rule of a majority over the minority. Democracy _seems_ good, but it can only serve to justify theft, as it does today. If 51% of people agree that stealing from Tom and Dick to benefit Harry is okay then magically it is okay? Take care of the means and the end will take care of itself. Don't steal or aggress against your neighbor either individually or en masse. Be peaceful.

[Brushfire]

Unfortunately, the economics of your proposed system do not work out. People are short-sighted. People are locally-political (ie 'Not In My BackYard'). Some things require economies of scale.

I'm with you, taxes are bad. In some ways, I agree with you that we should be able to earmark our dollars for things we 'prefer', but unfortunately that system will never work out.

I also agree that taxes are theft from the government. Unfortunately, the government has a need to steal from you. But its important to look at it like this. I've always maintained that TAX DAY should be 1 day before VOTING DAY. Anyone else notice how they are 6 months apart? This is by design. I believe in small, local government, which is a less extreme view than you are expounding above.

Unfortunately, some Federal/State taxes ARE necessary for a functioning society. We MUST have a military in some form. We MUST pay some government workers to regulate trade and commerce between states and other countries. We MUST have basic amenities that are built out at the cost of the populace as a whole, together, through taxes (Read: Water).

Everything else, however, is up for debate.

Remember -- as Winston Churchill once put: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried.."

[scudco]

I tend to think "economies of scale" or simply economics is a very difficult thing to understand. Governmental economic policy, whatever it may be, is the implicit practice of saying "We, the chosen few, understand one of the most complex things in the world and we will control it for you." I'm pessimistic of anyone claiming omniscience in something so complex whether they are an individual or a mouthpiece for a group of people.

Order in economy tends to come about more quickly and more judiciously when government is not involved. Corporations though they may finance or have interests in a warfare state are only allowed to exercise power through the fictitious legitimacy of the state. If Joe's Diner went to war with Bob's Diner we quickly see the cost of war. They are both out of business because war is expensive. Not to mention ordinary folks would not say to themselves, "Well Joe over here is fighting for my rights! Support The Troops (of Joe's Diner)!" This, of course, is ridiculous.

So this is why we need taxes? Warfare or welfare. I would rather be peaceful and sleep at night. I would rather trade with my neighbors than impoverish them through blockades, embargoes, or whatever else the government can only do through force of arms.

I notice you are very strident about what taxes must be used for, but my whole point on taxes is that if we MUST have these things then let us do them voluntarily through cooperative efforts. If you and I both want an organization to achieve goal X let us get together and achieve that goal. If someone doesn't want to help us out then let's try to convince them we're right not through force of arms(taxation), but through discussion and friendship. Be peaceful.

I think you might do well to study Winston Churchill's policies during and leading up to World War II. He and FDR both colluded to embolden western government to become more interventionist and war-like. I have heard that quote before, but I would challenge you, seriously, to consider a world without government. Start small with a family, then a city, then a region, then a continent. At what point does government intervention by force of arms against peaceful non-compliers become okay? I only ask that you answer that question for yourself.

[krschultz]

The good news is that in America it is not the tyranny of the majority over the minority. When you look at the population distribution vs the electoral college vote distribution the minority of Americans in this country, it quickly becomes apparent that the rural minority has more power than the (sub)urban majority. This largely correlates to conservatives winning 7 out of the last 10 Presidential elections, so truly, it is the minority telling the majority what to do. The founding fathers greatly understood the problem you are pointing to - and put many safe guards in place. Many of those have been eroded, but not all.

And to characterize taxes as stealing is utterly ridiculous. If you don't pay taxes should the police not protect your house? Are you saying that taxes should be volunteering? Maybe you should brush up on economics, but it is clear that there are somethings government has to do. Why would I volunteer to pay for the roads or the schools or the military if I don't have to and someone else will? And no person could really avoid using the services of the government.

[APLonDrugs]

I agree on the republic idea, but those safe guards that have been eroded, make it stealing. The 16th was fraudulent ratified; “The Law That Never Was” makes this point well. If we “apportion” as the constitution says to, we have problem too, because it is a check as well. It would be hard politically to tell California to cough up their portion of the debt. So the constitution is not obeyed perhaps more so to divide the people, that is how the power that be controls populations. If it is gold and silver coins, to declaration of war to the way the 16th was passed turned into law, or the state’s picking of senators, who benefits? When the rule of law is not obeyed, I conceive the idea that perhaps you do have robbery, be it in different forms, but still robbery.

[ntoshev]

I always wondered what a government would look like if everyone could decide for theirselves where to go, say, 50% of their taxes.

[DanielBMarkham]

A democracy?

[jrockway]

I'm not sure this makes much sense. Can you choose to eat non-FDA approved foods or drugs; no, you go to jail if you do. Airlines can train their own pilots, if someone was in the air force before becoming a commercial pilot, that's great but not relevant. People outside of the US use Internet protocols paid for by DARPA, but they don't pay taxes.

Anyway, it is very easy to avoid income tax in the US -- don't have any income. Last time I checked, you don't forfeit any services, either.

[enomar]

Murdered? Certain death?

Maybe you know something I don't, but I don't think they impose the death penalty for not paying taxes.

In any case, paying taxes and not voting seems to be an ineffective strategy. What's your end game?

[scudco]

I would like to live in peace with my neighbors. The only justifiable way to achieve this goal is through non-violent noncompliance against the coercive state.

Also the post I linked to in my first comment explains why any illegitimate power must resort to murder to assert its power over others.

[jdavid]

@scudco, you are trying to explain freedom to a domesticated person that has never experienced freedom.

i feel like i am explaining the same arguments over and over to people that believe the must be mastered or complete chaos will ensue. i think all libertarians feel this way talking to people.

for me, freedom is a dream worth dieing for. I just have not figured out what will lead to freedom.

[krschultz]

Expect as a libertarian too, you guys are the ones who sink our chances to ever enact any meaningful progress. There is no society that has ever existed without some form of taxation. If you want no taxes, than you want no government. Then you are anarchists, not libertarians. I have no problem with that, but don't lump us in with you. Small government is a lot different than no government.