Toadfish Monastery

Most of the questions so far relate to my ability to step out of the existing tax-based society, how we would do without all the goods & services currently paid for with taxes, or the efficiency of private alternatives.  First, I never intended to make a case for my individual secession, so that question, as formed, becomes academic.  As there are others who share my desire for a free (referring to liberty, not cost) existence, I think it is reasonable to lump these types of questions under the heading: "How can we move towards a viable, voluntary (tax-free) society?". 

While I think that that would be an excellent topic for discussion, before we dive into the "how" of the matter, we must first address the "should".  This brings us back to the assertion I made in my original post that has seemed to rattle so many cages:  "Taxation is an act of robbery".  Unless this statement is shown to be false, arguments regarding "how to provide this or that" amount to arguing that theft is good when it appears to be the only practical or convenient way of getting what you want.

So is taxation robbery?  I arrive at the conclusion that is,indeed, with the following observations & reasoning:

• Robbery is the taking of another's property by use of force or fear.
• A tax is a charge against a citizen's person or property or activity for the support of government.
• Absent a voluntary (non-coerced) contract to the contrary, there can be no legitimate claim upon a person or their property.
• Non-payment of taxes is punishable by the use of force.

These are the fundamental aspects of my argument.  I understand that there is room for reasonable questioning of them.  If I have erred in my logic or made an assumption that isn't obvious or reasonable to you, please challenge me on it.

I am not trying to dodge or hand-wave issues of practicality, but it is very easy to get swept away by the volume of inevitable questions that are asked when something radically different is proposed.  I know that we're only discussing taxes at the moment, but I'm hoping that we can try to reach some sort of agreement on the basic moral principles that we should live by.

Finally, l would just ask that people pause before they rush to the conclusion that I am some sort of greedy, self-centered - perhaps even elitist - dolt that just wants to keep my precious property - everyone else be damned.  I am just a guy trying to find a guiding set of principles that will provide everyone with the opportunity to live their lives freely & prosperously.  While on that journey, I've questioned some basic tenets of society, and I fully realize that I will receive push-back as some sacred cows get tipped.

Let me know what you think...

elf

Hello, Sibling Chatty!

I had already written the following when I noticed that you had recently posted that you were no longer interested in discussing this.  I'm posting this anyway, in the hope that you or somebody else would like to pick up where you left off.

Quote from: Sibling Chatty on September 02, 2007, 04:15:57 AM
Would you care to elucidate on the nature of your ability to provide all your very own (roads, airports, fire, police and other protections, et cetera)  infrastructure,

Heavens, no!  Why on earth would I want to do that?  I would, however, be more than happy to contract for any & all of the services that I desire or need, within the constraints of my budget - much as I already do for my cell phone, internet, insurance, pest control, a/c maintenance, car maintenance, vocational training, lawn service, checking account, etc.

Quote from: Sibling Chatty on September 02, 2007, 04:15:57 AM
and how this 'theft' (and that of your school takes) should NOT be considered part of your repayment to the larger society that provided these thing far you as you were growing up, and until this point, where you're prepared to take over and provide all this for yourself?

Ah, now we're getting down to the brass tacks.  The crux of your argument seems to be that taxes are not theft because they are the repayment of a debt to "the larger society".  So the taxes paid by my parents weren't enough?  Where is the contract for this debt?  What are the terms?  Who, exactly, constitutes this "larger society"?  Forgetting, for the moment, questions regarding the identity of this larger society and the absence of voluntary contracts for services, I still fail to see where I have a debt.  Lacking a written agreement to refer to, I can only surmise that my parents paid for the public services they received as they went.  As I have also paid my taxes ever since adulthood, I'm missing the part where I became indebted to anyone.  If I've carelessly overlooked something, please point it out.

Quote from: Sibling Chatty on September 02, 2007, 04:15:57 AM
You ARE prepared to forgo airports, streets, highways, hospitals, all educational systems, all manufactured or shipped in goods AND the services of technicians that were trained in any of the public financed systems OR that might arrive at your destination using them, are you not? No mail, UPS, DHL, etc either, as tax funding helped establish them, too, and they're users of the same infrastructure...and the funding for the development of the Internet and the WWW came from taxes as well

The rest of your argument is simply a list of goods & services that you presume that I must be willing to do without because tax money was used at some point in their production chains.  I see where you are coming from, but don't you think having to forgo "the services of technicians that were trained in any of the public financed systems" is a bit of a stretch?  Would you make it illegal for them to trade voluntarily with me because they learned their trade in an institution that was funded to one degree or another by taxes?  Or is that another obligation listed in every citizen's invisible social contract?

Are you arguing that everyone must continue to submit to robbery because everyone else is being robbed & that practically every corner of the economy is influenced by all this stolen money?  Or are you just pointing out the difficulties in progressing towards a freer social organization?  If the latter, I think we've put the cart before the horse here.  Before we get into an in-depth discussion of how to move towards a voluntary society - a topic deserving of a thread or twelve in its own right - perhaps we should establish the legitimacy & morality (or lack thereof) of taxation first. 

Towards that end, perhaps you would care to elucidate:

• how taxes are actually a repayment of a legitimate debt.
• when it is right & just to initiate force (directly, or via an agent) against the person or property of another human being.
• how the criteria that you provide in response to the above items can be uniformly & consistently applied to all human beings without contradiction.

I look forward to your (or anyone's) considered response.

Alpaca, Sibling Zono - Thanks for the responses... I'll reply as time permits!

Cheers!

elf

.:Edit: This topic has been split off from another thread. Oddness may exist near the beginning. --Alpaca:.

Greetings Alpaca, Good Folk!

Quote from: Alpaca on August 18, 2007, 06:45:33 AMBut they represent what I think is the fundamental problem with out educational system today: lack of intelligence.
[...]
Meanwhile, your thoughts on education, siblings?

I can certainly agree that the American education system can sure give an appearance of lacking intelligence - I chafed at the very same symptom when I was in school.  I no longer think that that is case, however.

We tend to talk very casually about "educational systems", usually in reference to one established by a particular nation's central government.  When we discuss the American one, we should be clear that we are really discussing the Prussian school system:

QuoteThe Prussian system proved to be a success for that government's purposes. By the late 1800's men in the United States including Horace Mann, Barnis Sears, and Calvin Stove heard about the successes of the Prussian system. They traveled to Germany to investigate how the educational process worked. Upon their return to the United States they lobbied heavily to have the Prussian model adopted.

Horace Mann was largely responsible for the introduction of compulsory public education, Prussian-style, in the United States.

• Wikipedia, Prussian education system

Of course this begs the question: what were "that government's purposes"? 

QuoteSeeking to replace the controlling functions of the local aristocracy, the Prussian court attempted to instill social obedience in the citizens through indoctrination. Every individual had to become convinced, in the core of his being, that the King was just, his decisions always right, and the need for obedience paramount.

The schools imposed an official language to the prejudice of ethnic groups living in Prussia. The purpose of the system was to instill loyalty to the Crown and to train young men for the military and the bureaucracy. As the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, a key influence on the system, said, "The schools must fashion the person, and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than what you wish him to will."

• Wikipedia, Prussian education system

Quote from: Sheldon Richman
Just as the Prussian system was intended to unify Germany, the American educators' goal was to create a national culture out of the disparate subcultures that comprised the country in that period. (Catholic immigrants were a prominent target.) "To do that," writes [John Taylor Gatto, the New York State Teacher of the Year in 1991], "children would have to be removed from their parents and from inappropriate cultural influences."

The modern public school curriculum comes right out of the Prussian system. Gatto says the American educationists imported three major ideas from Prussia. The first was that the purpose of state schooling was not intellectual training but the conditioning of children "to obedience, subordination and collective life." Second, whole ideas were broken into fragmented "subjects," and school days were divided into fixed periods "so that self-motivation to learn would be muted by ceaseless interruptions." Third, the state was posited as the true parent of the children.

• Horrors! Maybe the Schools Are Working Just Fine

Now, one wouldn't expect reasons such as these to go over too well with the American people then or now.  Not to worry - governments have a couple tried & tested tools at their disposal: playing to people's fears, and harnessing their natural goodwill.  Particularly tragic is how state officials appeal to the desire that most people have to see others do well in order to get their policies accepted, turning the best intentions into an act of aggression.

Most people would like everyone to be well-fed, well-educated, healthy, & happy.  Some people are even willing & able to put their money where there mouth is.  But with government on your side, you can put other people's money where your mouth is.  In addition to being compulsory, the public school system is funded with stolen money - that is, money extracted from others under the threat of violence.  Now many people will have a hard time accepting the notion that taxes are a form of armed robbery.  If I were to refuse to pay the portion of my property taxes allocated to fund the public schools ($868.82), it won't be long before the government claims my house, and they will arrest me at gunpoint should I refuse to leave.  Note that the outcome would be the same even if I was unable to pay because I quit my job to volunteer full-time for that very same school system.

So, whether by playing up fears of an uneducated & impoverished mob or by plucking the heartstrings of those desiring opportunity for others, policy makers have successfully created an institution that is both empowering to them and virtually unthinkable to remove.

I find it ironic that one of the earliest lessons we learn is that "two wrongs don't make a right", yet here we are still justifying the initiation of force against others to "correct" the the perceived problems in education.

All in all, I find that I agree with Sheldon Richman when he writes:

QuoteSo, judged by their purpose, how have the public schools performed?

Not bad, really. Unlike our ancestors' private schools, the public schools produce citizens who look to government to make important decisions for them — from whether to help the poor, to what drugs to take, to how to get an education — and solve societal problems.

• Horrors! Maybe the Schools Are Working Just Fine

One thing that I've noticed that is endemic to this discussion is the concept of "fairness".  Now, who in their right mind would take up a stance against fairness?!  Well, apparently I would - and I will leave it to the reader to decide whether I am, indeed, in my right mind.  Does this make me for "unfairness"?  Yes & no, I think - it all comes down to what one considers fair.

Is it fair that some of us are born into poverty, while others are born into wealth?  Is it fair that  some gazelles are eaten by lions, while other live to old age browsing the savanna?  Is it fair that some baby birds live to fly, while a gust of wind sends others to the ground to die of exposure?  These things just are.  "That's all well & fine", you say, "but humans are conscious & can affect their environment in unprecedented ways... it is incumbent  upon us to be fair & just - because we, alone, can".  Or maybe you don't say that, but some do!  I swear!  Besides, it gives me a perfect opening to ask:  "Is it fair to compel other conscious beings to act against their wishes, provided they are not injuring you?"  Schemes of fairness that rely on the forced reallocation of wealth seem to assert that that is, indeed, fair.  I beg to differ.

I bring this up only because fairness is so often used to justify the current educational system.  I don't want to see children raised in ignorance because their parents are poor.   I do know that I would have a lot more money to give to charity if nearly 50%of my income weren't being stolen from me "for the greater good".  I do know that there is nothing fair, in my estimation, about the current state of affairs.  And I do know that there is no "one size fits all" solution when it comes to education - or much else, for that matter.

I suspect that I've rambled on enough at this point.  There is so much to be said in relation to this topic....  If any of you have made it this far, I thank you for your patience & perseverance!

Alpaca, I'm sorry if this sounds like a harsh condemnation of an institution which you have to live with for the moment.  Life grants many opportunities to choose between the "red pill" and the "blue pill".  If any of this resonates with you, all you need do is look into it on your own & form your own opinion.  You seem to already be seeing the glitches in the matrix.  Pulling at the loose threads will allow you to inform yourself.  You may not find anything interesting, but you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you looked!

Cheers!

elf

Greetings, Good Folk!

I'm not as shy as my brethren, so there is no need to restrain yourselves on my account.  I must admit to being unprepared for such a swift calling out, however.  =D  The monks of the monastery sleep in rotation, I see... ever vigilant.

There be pirates, eh?  A colorful lot, indeed!  Interesting notions regarding property rights - alas, a topic for another thread, to be sure.

Pardon me while I lurk about & determine what, exactly, I've gotten myself into this time.

May you timbers never shiver!  (I hope that passes for polite in pirate circles!)