Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfarer
not true at all, though i guess i should make it clear that i'm not completely against taxation. i'm definitely not opposed to Friedman's idea of a temporary negative income tax replacing all other taxes as well as the welfare state. i mean, it's not just that i see taxation as theft and thus immoral, it's that i sincerely believe society would be better off without it - and i hate to sound like an elitist prick but anyone who honestly thinks that without taxation there would be no police or roads has a good bit of reading to do.
|
Let me rephrase that: taxation is necessary if you're governing a millions of people. There is no possible way a total laissez-faire system could provide all the things that are publicly funded by the state. Here's the ultimate problem (this isn't necessarily your argument at all) I have with this "taxation is immoral! people can donate to the government if they want those things" kind of argument or the argument that capitalism could provide it all. I think it's a completely hypocritical argument. They believe that the government, by taking money from you via taxes, is being immoral and coercing you. Instead they propose a system where you freely give money to the government or pay a company to take care of all publicly funded things because it is "in your best interests." When it comes to the matters of protection (police, army) they state that if the rich people (this is another thing I could go into but won't) don't donate then they'll probably end up getting attacked or robbed so that is why funding police (which seems silly to me. If I was going to fund something for my protection I'd fund a security team.) Isn't that far worse coercion? It's a threat of violence as opposed to the IRS knocking on your door. I can't speak for everyone but the latter sounds better to me.