[bpolverini]

The Government already has a monopoly on force and steals our money under the threat of imprisonment in the form of taxation: Now that money is supposed to be allocated into risky investments for abstract, unmeasureable benefits like "soft power," for the benefit of people somewhere else? That creates resentment here. It also infantilizes the Global South.

How much better would it be if we eliminated the IMF, shrank government, and lowered taxes so individuals could freely choose how to benefit the Global South via nonprofit giving? If people don't give voluntarily, why should they be compelled to give in the form of taxation?

I feel like Graeber, an anarchist, would appreciate a decentralized solution like that instead of trying to handle this from the top down.

[bparsons]

Nature abhors a vacuum. If western countries are not setting up credit facilities, someone else will.

It might be predatory private entities looking to get their hands on state assets, or it might be the Saudis or Chinese looking to exert more political power.

If we want to seal ourselves off from most of the world and stop trading or participating in regional security arrangements, then this is a reasonable approach.

I think people underestimate how much of our material wealth in the west is reliant on these trade and security arrangements.

Countries like the United States can pursue a North Korean model and try to produce everything domestically, but the standard of living is going to plummet.

[andrepd]

The view that "you have _your_ money and then the government takes it away from you" ignores that without the society that you are inserted in, the very concept of money would be meaningless. More accurate to say is that part of the social contract for participating in a society that enables you to """make""" that money is that you have a pay a "fee", i.e. taxes (among other things, e.g. abiding by laws which are democratically decided, etc).

Society is a mutually beneficial arrangement. I agree that you should be able to "opt out" and live in a homestead way out in the forest, and that if you do so you should be exempt of taxes. But unless you live in a Kazynscki cabin, that view makes no sense.

[oceanplexian]

Sure, there are some beneficial things that the government does. Like roads, police, fire, regulatory agencies; all the usual things that are cited as "We live in a society" line items. But those things are a tiny minority of government spending.

The VAST majority of the federal budget goes to entitlements. Another massive chunk goes to paying interest on debt because we spent money we didn't have on entitlements. An similarly large chunk goes to defense (Which you could make an argument for, except the VAST majority of which is not actually used for defense, but intervening in far away conflicts)

So going back to all the "society" items, well, the roads, infrastructure electricity, basic services, police, clean water, airports; all the stuff you really need for a society: They're a tiny, minute sliver of the money the government takes from us on a regular basis. You could reduce taxes by 90% and still provide everything you need from a functional society without the parasitic drain on the economy.

[plagiarist]

"Entitlements."

The real parasitic drain on the economy is the large accumulations of capital that prevent the Invisible Hand from manifesting. Being alive is an inelastic good. If people have to choose between starving to death or labor for scrip to use at the company grocery, it breaks the efficiency of the market at valuing labor.

[keeety_]

Dollars are the scrip and the government is the company store, only accepting dollars (they control) for the protection racket.

[plagiarist]

The government is both wasting too much money feeding poors who that guy wants to labor or die, and also at the same time forcing too many people to labor for no gain because of whatever thing you're imagining here.

[disgruntledphd2]

I don't mean to be hyperbolic, but that's how you get people (mostly children and old people) starving in the streets.

That's what those entitlements pay for.

Maybe you think that's not worthwhile, fair enough. Unfortunately for you, many of your fellow citizens and taxpayers disagree.

[keeety_]

It's quite possible taxation results in more starvation than it prevents. Particularly when used to incentive low income fertility and dis-incintivize production and labor.

[disgruntledphd2]

Huh?

Like, that is an extremely strong claim and I'd appreciate if you could provide some evidence for it.

[oceanplexian]

Or, perhaps the 60% of American Households that give to charity would be able to take their increased pay, and more efficiently get help to people that need it than a series of large, fraud-ridden government programs.

[callalex]

If taxation is theft, why don’t you move to Somalia or start a cartel in a remote region of Mexico and live there? Or perhaps there are benefits you are receiving from living with a functioning government?

[keeety_]

Ah, the classic "if you don't want the money robbed from your wallet why don't you just leave town."

True colors emerge.

[dredmorbius]

It's not the monopoly on force, it's the monopoly on the claim to the legitimate use of violence, from Max Weber:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36317559>