[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.

[krschultz]

I've read all the conspiracy theories about the 16th amendment not being properly ratified, but honestly if we had to ratify it again today you and I both know that it would pass and so the whole arguement is moot. You are using loaded words to describe taxes. It is NOT stealing. Stealing is the unlawful taking of your money, if the taxes are approved by the rulers we all collectively voted for, then they are lawful. The fact that you disagree with everyone else, means that you simply disagree - not that taxes are stealing.

[APLonDrugs]

Legal plunder, perhaps would be a better term:-) And I would stand by that term as being correct. “Stealing is the unlawful taking of your money” agreed, so why is the constitution not being obeyed? Most of the programs, etc. are not constitutional along with everywhere the government is not obeying the constitution… there is a lot of this from not declaring war, to gold and silver coins. If the rule of law is not being obeyed, or was changed legally, by your own definition, perhaps it is stealing in many forms first of the power reserved for the people or the states.

I didn’t know “The Law That Never Was” was a conspiracy, I thought it was a factual record of what the state’s recorded and what the GSA and government recorded. Perhaps the term of conspiracy is a better label? or you are using a loaded word, to mark an area of taboo. After pushing towards a 100 years of tax/need brainwashing, I don’t know what the affect would be if the 16th was to pass today, I think it would never have passed in 1800, though:-) to say it is moot is like saying because the people would not approve the constitution today, using that document of freedom is moot as well, we should disregard it. I do not believe that would be wise. The more I think about how the rule of law is not being obeyed, in all its forms, the more I think stealing might be better than legal plunder…. I like your case though, thanks for reply

[krschultz]

No, "The Law That Never Was" is a conspiracy. A conspiracy for Benson to make money off dumb saps who believe it.

The court stated: "Benson has failed to point to evidence that would create a genuinely disputed fact regarding whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified or whether United States Citizens are legally obligated to pay federal taxes. Also, as is indicated above, Benson is precluded in this action from taking the position that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified."[20] The court stated that "the undisputed evidence shows that Benson had actual knowledge that the information in the Reliance Defense Package was false or fraudulent."[21] The court also stated: "Benson falsely tells customers that if they purchase and use his products they will be shielded from criminal prosecution for violating the internal revenue laws. Purchasers of the 'Reliance Defense Package' receive a letter signed by Benson that falsely represents that the purchaser can rely on Benson's research to conclude that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, and that the purchaser is thereby not required to file federal income tax returns or pay federal income or social security taxes to the United States."[22] The court ruled that "Benson's position has no merit and he has used his fraudulent tax advice to deceive other citizens and profit from it" in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6700.[23]

And honestly, you don't think that a bunch of rich people would have tried to overturn the income tax back when it was 70%? I'm in the upper tax bracket. If I didn't have to pay it or I could donate to a fund for people who wanted to overturn it, I would in a heart beat.

I think it is a silly arguement to have. If it were up to me, all the taxes would be income taxes and everything else would be 0. No capital gains, no estate, no tariffs, no corporate. Make the American people feel exactly what these programs cost - becuase right now they pay all the other taxes indirectly and they don't know it. Make people feel what a big government really means on their pocket and then you will see how many more people are screaming for libertarian policies. But saying "we shouldn't pay any tax" and "i wish I could succeed from the government" which I know is a common libertarian ideal, is just so impractical as to be a detriment to the cause.

[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.