• abraxas@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    None of these things you replied with have anything to do with the topic at hand, and I understand. It’s easy to come up with some fancy catch-phrase and just hold to it in the face of rational thought. It’s what governments do all the time.

    You have not and will not convince me that a government will ever be more competent and efficient at solving these issues than alternatives

    This is a topic change and gishgallop. I have opinions on that topic, but why would I pivot to it with how bent out of shape you’re getting over this one?

    And, I repeat, it is not voluntary

    It is “not voluntary” only the same way contracts are “not voluntary” or work is “not voluntary”. It’s hard to get by without those things because the entire world disagrees with you on them. But it’s possible.

    If private property is not a right, what gives the government right to dictate my life because I happened to be born on this particular plot of land?

    They don’t dictate your life. They dictate that a percent of the private property they amplify for you go back to them. If you choose not to take their protection on a piece of property, or use their infrastructure in any way, they can ask nothing of you. With very few exceptions, if you work any job or any land at all, you use government infrastructure in 100 different ways. It is perfectly legal in many countries (including the US) to live in the wilderness and sustain yourself on your own efforts. In such a case, you use no infrastructure and pay no taxes. Win/win. What you seem to want is all the entitlement you already have, but the government providing it to you free of charge. Good fucking luck.

    • frevaljee@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It is not legal where I live, and I assure you that the tax agency where I live will hunt me to the edge of the world if I refuse to pay exactly what they demand.

      We are just looping around the same arguments here, and do not move anywhere.

      Let’s try not talking about the binary situation of refusing a government or taxes altogether. I can agree that certain things can be handled by a state (although not in the most efficient way imo). There are still a shit ton of things that governements spend money on that I might not want. For example, where I live a significant portion of my obligatory tax goes to state run “public service”, i.e. state run entertainment. And our process for public procurement is a mess, where things cost insane amounts of money, and most of the time don’t even lead to any actual executed projects.
      How are such things defensible with an obligatory tax design?

      What I’m trying to say is that yes in a perfect world taxes are fine and dandy, and we get nice roads and healthcare, but in the reality that at least I live in it is just an expensive mess of things that I mostly don’t want, but am forced to pay for.

      Edit: a word

      • abraxas@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        It is not legal where I live

        Does where you live also restrict emmigration? If so, you’re not in a free country in the first place. It’s 100% legal where I live.

        Let’s try not talking about the binary situation of refusing a government or taxes altogether. I can agree that certain things can be handled by a state (although not in the most efficient way imo). There are still a shit ton of things that governements spend money on that I might not want

        So? Independent will is not the be-all end-all. If you want to kill people, you don’t get to do that. Not paying taxes is not a victimless act, either. That’s part of the societal agreement. You don’t always get what you want. But you do get to do things that many people think you shouldn’t get to do. As I mentioned “property is theft” to many people. And I reject their opinion the same as yours.

        For example, where I live a significant portion of my obligatory tax goes to state run “public service”, i.e. state run entertainment

        Are you a democracy? If you’re a free country, at least some percent of society wants to use tax dollars to that. If you’re not a in free country, well, taxes is a weird hill to die on.

        And our process for public procurement is a mess, where things cost insane amounts of money, and most of the time don’t even lead to any actual executed projects. How are such things defensible with an obligatory tax design?

        Private sector inefficiency is pretty horrible in most of the world… and most of the world thinks it’s ok to have private sector inefficiency (aka, profit margins). I tend to fight FOR regulated efficiency in both the private and public sectors… so you have my sympathy, just disagreement that it means taxation is actual theft.

        What I’m trying to say is that yes in a perfect world taxes are fine and dandy, and we get nice roads and healthcare, but in the reality that at least I live in it is just an expensive mess of things that I mostly don’t want, but am forced to pay for.

        I don’t know where you live or the details, but it seems you agree taxation isn’t theft :). But more importantly, I’m sorry to hear your government is wasteful (or that you think it is. Though I can’t really guess where you’re from, I find the most effective governments often have the most complaints of government waste).