[jerf]

Because social programs get their money from coercion. GitHub doesn't. (To the extent that you think you can find a private company that can and does use coercion, I object to that too.)

Even as a liberatarian, I'm happy to say some things are well worth the coercion. But it should never be forgotten, because otherwise people do start thinking it's just free money that has no other concerns whatsoever, and start spending it stupidly. We know this by simply looking around at political discourse, to the point that I almost wonder if you're dissembling when you claim that nobody thinks this way. Look harder. We should never forget that social spending is a cost/benefit question that never has zero costs.

I actually personally find it a bit bizarre that people find this an objectionable statement. Realizing that money is not free and should be spent on worthwhile things to account for the coercion should lead to better spending. Defending the proposition that we shouldn't be so concerned about the costs is a recipe for producing less efficient spending, as always happens when costs are misjudged. The fact that this sort of thing has been politicized ought to lead you to wonder who is politicizing it, and what they're hiding behind it.

[mikeash]

I don't think any of the people who think taxes are free money post to HN.

Constantly reminding HN posters that "free" government programs actually cost money, like every single other thing in life, just derails the conversation. It serves no useful purpose, because we already know. It's just political grandstanding.

Imagine if every single post on HN about the success of some company included comments like, "it's not really their success, since they used public roads and electrical infrastructure, oh and that whole Internet thing started out as a government program!" You'd probably get annoyed pretty fast at people shoving their politics in your face where it's unnecessary.

[Domenic_S]

> people shoving their politics

How is pointing this out politics? If pointing it out is politically conservative, ignoring it is politically liberal? I don't get it. It's one of the few economic absolute truths we have.

> "it's not really their success, since they used public roads

That happens already. You didn't build that! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that

[protomyth]

Despite a set of politicians views, that wouldn't be the logical conclusion.

The services provided by the government are paid for by the people (citizen and non-citizen) as taxes, foreigners as duties, or debt. The logical conclusion is that a person or company is paying for those roads and infrastructure. It is just another service, no more sacred than the cellular contract or rent on office space. We don't generally attribute the rent to our success.

[jerf]

'Imagine if every single post on HN about the success of some company included comments like, "it's not really their success, since they used public roads and electrical infrastructure, oh and that whole Internet thing started out as a government program!"'

Errr... I don't really have to imagine. That happens pretty frequently. I sort of agree that it's a grandstanding distraction either way.

[CaptainZapp]

  Because social programs get their money from coercion

Language matters, and the verb 'coercion' in this context, to me, is actually repugnent.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion):

"Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force,"

I don't see taxes (and I pay a fairly significant share) as our evil government squeezing out our hard earned cash by threatening, or intimidating us.

Quite the opposite: taxes are our entrance fees to a civilized society, to a working infrastructure, to good and fair education and to umpteen other things that make up a society.

You may argue how the public money is spent and how much of it should go into social programs and how deeply the state should get involved. Interesstingly, more equal societies, like the Nordics, seem to provide generally a higher quality of life for their citizens.

You can see taxes as a necessary evil, or hate them, but defining taxation as coercion is pretty loaded and rather close to Orwellian newspeak.

[jerf]

"You can see taxes as a necessary evil, or hate them, but defining taxation as coercion is pretty loaded and rather close to Orwellian newspeak."

In addition to what refurb said, I feel you're exactly backwards. We should always remember that taxes come from the threat of imprisonment if you don't pay and coercive force. There are things that are worth this threat. Civilization is a big deal. It's a good thing. I'm rather Hobbesian on my view of Nature; in that sense I'm probably more enamored with civilization than the average liberal who believes in the inherent goodness of man. I think we have much farther we can fall than such a person would. But people should not casually use this power. To wipe away the fact that taxation is coercive is to encourage attitudes that spend your time and energy on irrelevant, if not downright wrong, purposes. That's not something we should overlook.

Taxation is a big deal. It's intrinsically coercive. It should only be used on really important things, not for things like shutting up some interest group somewhere, or buying votes, or lining the pockets of your buddies, or worthless administration (and please note the word "worthless" isn't superfluous there), or any of the other myriad of ways government can coercively spend the fruits of our precious, precious time on this planet.

That said, by the way, I think this particular thing is a solid use of taxpayer dollars. Or at least it is, provided it's somewhat efficient; if they're managing to blow $10,000 a box or something, as the US government would probably find a way to do (a snipe at our particular government today, not the concept of government in general), that's less true.

Also, if you do not today agree with me, wait three years. When a Republican is President again, it will once again be a popular notion that we shouldn't have to pay our taxes blindly to the government and we should think really carefully about how we're spending on things. I'm just ahead of the progressive curve here, that's all.

[mindcrime]

Taxation is a big deal. It's intrinsically coercive. It should only be used on really important things, not for things like shutting up some interest group somewhere, or buying votes, or lining the pockets of your buddies, or worthless administration (and please note the word "worthless" isn't superfluous there), or any of the other myriad of ways government can coercively spend the fruits of our precious, precious time on this planet.

That's a very good point. I, for one, consider taxation to be theft, plain and simple. But yet I don't try to defend myself from this theft via force, for pragmatic reasons (they employ more men with guns than I do, for one). So, I grudgingly tolerate a certain level of coercion, even though it is extremely distasteful to me.

BUT... I maintain that if you're going to steal my money and spend it - nominally - in my name, then you better damn well spend it wisely and on something important. This is one reason government agencies piss me off so much.. I see so much waste and inefficiency and fraud and other shenanigans, and it just enrages me that they are taking my money and blowing it on idiotic shit, or - worse - things that I'm fundamentally morally opposed to.

[mindcrime]

"Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force,"

I don't see taxes (and I pay a fairly significant share) as our evil government squeezing out our hard earned cash by threatening, or intimidating us.

And what if you decide that you have a better idea of how to spend your money than the State, and stop paying "your taxes"? Do it long enough, they send men with guns to arrest you, and put you on trial and (probably) put you in jail. If you resist any portion of this process, you will probably be shot to death by the men with guns.

How is this not "use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force"?

All State power is ultimately rooted in the use of force. Just because many (even most?) people happily pay "their taxes" out of rote habit, or because they've grown to accept a certain measure of coercion as acceptable, doesn't change the underlying principle.

[res0nat0r]

I guess it is not coercion due to the fact that no one is preventing you by force from packing your bags and leaving the USA.

[refurb]

Different strokes for different folks.

Taxes are certainly not voluntary. If you do not pay them, you will be coerced into doing so. Hence the use of the word.

[andrewflnr]

You say that using the word "coercion" is repugnant, and then quote a definition that perfectly fits taxation? You've got some nerve. You can see it however you want, but if you don't pay taxes, someone will come and physically haul you off to jail whether you like it or not, someone who is prepared to escalate to deadly force. Sure sounds like coercion to me.

Taxation might make sense as an "entrance fee" if someone asked you whether you wanted to participate, and gave you an honest chance to say no, but we don't really have that. You usually can't even just hide out on your land and not interact with anyone except dealing with trespassers, because of property tax, a form of coercion I find particularly repugnant.

Yes, language matters, which is why "coercion" is the perfect word for taxation.

[clicks]

It is a curious thing that you object to this.

Are you not also being coerced to conform to virtually every other societal norm? Try walking out naked down the street in broad daylight. See if you're not jumped by the police. Try hunting some deer in the non-hunting season for food, -- because afterall you're hungry and the meat would do: you'll meet the heavy side of law.

You're seeing things from a libertarian-lens I think. Human society is built on a social contract, that pretty much basically boils down to an agreement of certain rules and guidelines so the collective fares better in the end. It's a thing to avoid a tragedy of the commons. We recognize that the unprivileged are not given the same opportunities as the privileged ones (their children are not going to schools where their peers are supportive/smart, they don't have the right role models, they don't have access to the same resources), and we decide that it is only fair that they receive a little help from the privileged. You can choose to stop paying taxes and in the end be left with a deteriorating society with unable customers... but you don't want that do you? What is so hard to understand about this?

[oblique63]

Thank you for saying this. It really bothers me how arguments are reduced to meaningless 'facts' around here so quickly, when the real world is a lot more nuanced than that. A 'fact' without context is effectively meaningless (i.e. saying "the sky is blue" would be useless if we had no concept of a "sky"). The simple fact that "coercion" is defined in such a way that aligns with the way taxation is implemented is about as useful as one of those "fun facts" you see under snapple caps. Yeah, that's nice coincidence, but it's really only notable when you look at it for what it is: a relation between a word definition and a system implementation. In other words, the connotation of the word and the context of the system implementation are not necessarily guaranteed to be congruent, as there are many paths that lead to the same destination. And as you clearly stated, taxation is just a special case of the more general practice of governance through law enforcement. And while a lot of people here like to see 'law' as equal to 'right-ness', it too is not necessarily congruent but rather a close approximation (much the same way that I.Q. scores are a rough approximation of 'intelligence' -- another relatively 'vague' concept). What's funny, is that this incongruence makes itself pretty clear whenever drug laws are brought up. Several clamor to "legalize", yet many of the same people then go on use law/law-enforcement as an accurate metric for 'right-ness' in argumentation. The thing is that law is a pretty good metric for what society deems to be right in general for practical usage in implementing guidelines, but the system behind it is never going to be responsive/fast/informed enough to represent a useful snapshot of societal values that can then be used for argumentation[1]. If culture/society were generally static then that would be fine, but this big mess of dynamic interactions is much too complicated, so we just resort to using simple arbitrary factoids to end discussions.

[1] Not to mention that a government's body of law as a whole is not generated by a fixed algorithm; different laws arise from different needs/contexts/scenarios, and not understanding what context brought about any specific policy, yet still using it in argumentation, is essentially a strawman.

[andrewflnr]

Where did I say I objected to it? Coercion has it's place, and government's role is to use coercion where and only where it's justified. My point is, let's be clear that when we talk about things the government should do, we're necessarily talking about things for which coercion is justified.

[sneak]

> You can see taxes as a necessary evil, or hate them, but defining taxation as coercion is pretty loaded and rather close to Orwellian newspeak.

By your own copypasted definition, how can they be anything but?

Even if you love taxation and government spending, this is factually true.

[anigbrowl]

Because social programs get their money from coercion.

Garbage. I quite like paying taxes, because it suits me to outsource some money allocation to the government. You have a vote, and presumably when you benefit from things you voted for you don't go around feeling guilty at how you've coerced other people into going along with it.

Defending the proposition that we shouldn't be so concerned about the costs

You're focusing only on the costs, while ignoring the potential savings. Finland spends this money because it expects to get something in return: lower infant mortality, and its correlate, lower rates of infant ill-health and negligence. Bringing a baby to term and delivering it only to have it die represents a massive loss of productivity, and that loss is not confined to the grieving or irresponsible parents, it ripples out through society, both via spending by the parents' relatives and friends and through loss of economic productivity from illness, despression and so forth, not to mention that underprivileged children who do survive are more likely to suffer from mental illness, fall into crime, become homeless etc.

This notion that social programs are just a cost and deliver no benefit is asinine. It's highly economically efficient to provide new parents with the essential tools for looking after a baby, and a great more productive than issuing homilies about the (tiny) marginal increase in taxation that results.

[jerf]

"You're focusing only on the costs"

Bollocks. I'm saying we should talk about the costs, not ignoring the benefits. I actually think this is a net good move on Finland's part. I know you're projecting, since you've imputed claims to me I actively disagree with.

[anigbrowl]

Well, why is it so imperative that we talk about the costs if we're in a agreement that there's a net benefit? Perhaps I am projecting, but generally when people are at pains to point out that things are not free and there's a cost, what they mean is that there's a net cost to society (or think that there is) and that the money would be best spent somewhere else or not collected at all. When you lead off with a complaint that the money from social programs was extracted from you by 'coercion' the implication is that you're being forced to pay for something people should have to finance themselves.

I really don't get how you think this is a net good move but couch your argument in the form of a complaint about the government taking your lunch money. By definition, a net good is economically less costly to provide than to withhold. Even over the very short term (ie within the same fiscal year) I suggest that the opportunity cost of supplying the baby box is no more, or possibly lower than the costs of autopsies and lost productivity resulting from a higher rate of infant mortality.

[iy56]

It just means they feel like the other party is forgetting about the cost. For example, if I hear my friend raving about this new phone that only costs 99 dollars, I might remind him that it would require him to upgrade to a data plan that costs 20 dollars more per month. That doesn't mean that the phone isn't still worth buying, just that it's not as cheap as I think he is imagining it to be.

[anigbrowl]

Honestly, and especially in the case of public goods like the baby box discussed here, I think people are perfectly well aware that they don't fall out of the sky or grow on trees, even if they can't articulate the entire cost-benefit structure at the drop of a hat. But people who say the cost is being forgotten usually complain that it has to be picked up by 'the taxpayer' (meaning themselves), as if the expectant parent(s) had no history or prospects of ever paying taxes themselves.

Intentionally or not, the implicit suggestion that the costs are being picked up by someone else is rooted in economic stereotypes that remain widespread in the US despite a lack of supporting evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen or for a more current example: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-09/politics/38405...

[snowwrestler]

There's a net benefit to eating out every night (it's tasty and we don't have to do dishes), but my wife and I still consider the costs.

Just because something produces a net benefit does not mean that there are infinite funds to allocate toward it.

[anigbrowl]

Those are benefits. A net benefit means it's more economically efficient than the alternative - which might be true for you, but isn't necessarily so.

[Retric]

This is far from unique to social programs. In the US defense spending is ridiculously over the top stupidly high because in large part because there is little cost benifit analysis just how much can we increase it. The same can be said for targeted tax breaks, capital gains being taxed at 15% shafts everyone that does not have significant investments.