RE: Is Taxation Theft?
When you think about it, the question of theft doesn't really have much to do with how the money are spent afterwards, so achievements and failures in that persepective are not the most important thing to look at.
Theft is a crime and for theft to be the case some predefined elements of the crime should be met/proven for the crime to be determined to have taken place. For theft to have taken place something that is rightfully yours should be taken from you unrightfully. Is that the case with taxes? Do you have sovereign rights on everything you have come to control as part of society and taking advantage of all the public goods society has provided you with? I'm not sure the answer should necessarily be a yes. So either elements of the crime are hard to prove, both that you have rightful ownership of all your assets and that the government does not have a right to tax you on them.
You mention centralized government becoming void. What do you think will or could replace it? Wouldn't that be another form of government and could it function without any form of taxation?
You mention steemit as an alternative, but it's a system that builds upon all kinds of structures supported by governments and society. If it wasn't for government and taxes, the internet wouldn't exists and steemit couldn't exists without the internet.
You bring up some great points!
I'm not 100% positive that theft is the correct term, but I definitely think taxes are unjustified in many aspects. The way I am seeing it is: if people support a system and enjoy it being around, they should have the choice to fund it and continue funding it by their own will, not by a law that forces them to give up a certain percentage of their earnings. Wishful thinking maybe, but that is what dreamers do, and doers start with.
With taxes, we have no choice and can even be handed a legal sentence if we avoid paying them. That is like someone holding handcuffs in front of you and saying 'give me your money or I take your freedom'. Putting it that way, I'd say taxes are a more of a threat than simply theft.
"Do you have sovereign rights on everything you have come to control as part of society and taking advantage of all the public goods society has provided you with?"
From the majority of public perspectives on this issue in the US, yes. Anything that you earn (money) and purchase (with money) is legally yours. In fact, lawsuits would not happen without this fact, as every lawsuit boils down to money/assets. Someone owing something of theirs to someone else, for x amount of reasons. This implies rights of ownership.
"You mention centralized government becoming void. What do you think will or could replace it? Wouldn't that be another form of government and could it function without any form of taxation?"
I am not sure what exactly would replace it, as that is far above my mental capacities to imagine on my own. Right now we are seeing a blossoming of myriads of decentralized platforms coming into existence, that operate without taxation. They do require funding, but so does anything in this world to operate on a massive scale, like non-profit organizations for example. Do I think a government could exist in this way? Sure! Why not? Less room for corruption!
"You mention steemit as an alternative..."
I wasn't meaning to imply that Steemit could replace a government (but that would be an interesting world, a social media based government....hmmm), I was pointing to Steemit as an example of how society is changing so rapidly. Steemit is a great example since it is the first successful social media platform to exist on blockchain tech. Blockchain technology itself might be an even better example!
"If it wasn't for government and taxes, the internet wouldn't exists and steemit couldn't exists without the internet."
That's a bold claim.... I am not so sure. People have a habit of coming together to create things, so maybe if the internet wasn't made possible by a government it would have been realized by another giant entity of sorts. Or maybe something similar but completely different would have come into existence. That is a hypothetical rabbit hole I don't want to travel too far down.
I do think this is wishful thinking as a lot of the people wouldn't want to part with any of their possessions if they have a choice not to.
I'm not saying you don't have a right of ownership, I'm asking if you think this right is sovereign. I maintain that it's not and it's derived from the same legal system that also forces you to pay your taxes. From a legal standpoint ownership is enforced in the exact same way as taxes - through legislation and government. If you don't have legislation and a body to enforce it, there is no good way to resolve ownership disputes and your possessions could be still taken away from you with the threat of violence by more powerful individuals.
I haven't jet come across an idea or concept of how the government could function in a decentralized fashion without taxation. Also depending on your definition of corruption, it might actually open the gates for some times more than centralized government actually does.
Of course, I wouldn't say that decentralized systems have no place in government and/or society, there are certainly areas where they would bolster efficiency and increase the desired outcomes. Still, I'm not convinced they could function in place of government alone. Government simply has too many functions to fulfill and some of those don't lend themselves to such efforts.
It was funded with tax dollars and international comparability was ensured through regulation and legislation. My supposedly bold claim is about the internet meaning this particular internet. The claim that something like what we have now would be possible without government support is quite questionable and there is actually evidence to support that with a lot of historical and contemporary cases of technological incomparability and standardization usually resulting from government regulations. That's why I see the claim that creating a truly global network of any sort would be much less likely without centralized standardization and regulation efforts and even if it might be possible, it would take much longer for it to evolve and/or be created. What you would be more likely to see would be many smaller networks operating in different areas and/or side by side with limited or lacking compatibility trying to keep their clients and influence. But yeah, that is a huge rabbit hole indeed :)
I think people would be willing to give voluntarily if they receive a service they need instead (as people are now paying e.g. for insurance, or property protection to certain commercial entities). I imagine that a decentralized goverment would be comprised of different service providers and people would voluntarily pay regular fees (perhaps they could still be called "taxes") in exchange for said services. The government would be like a hub for those providers and could also take a cut (or it could be given by the system to the delegates supporting the system, as in steemit).
What makes the difference between legislation and protection racket then?
Will there be enough people to volunteer to pay for nature reserves? Who will pay to enforce a punishment for the enslavement or murder of a possessionless individual with no family? What happens if you need a service like police or a fire department but don't have the money to pay for it? Let them burn your house and rape your family then or what?
The real question is would people voluntarily pay regular fees and would those fees be enough to support those service providers.
You keep citing steemit as if it is an absolutely free market with no regulation while it is not the case. Are not all the hardforks still a form of influencing, regulating and governing the system? I maintain they are and keeping in mind how large some of the whales are (including the founders and the steemit organization if I understand things correctly), it's hard to call it truly decentralized in a practical way.
You are indeed a government system without taxes, but that could not function without regulation either. Would the judicial service provider not be regulated? Who will pay the salaries of the people that help regulate it? Who would decide who those people are? Who would ensure the safety and reliability of that process? Who would pay for all of that? Voluntary fees?
There doesn't need to be a huge difference for it to be the only practical way to organize that we have for now. But the difference is in the intent and process - democracy with the intent to be just vs the pursuit of self-interest without any regard for others.
Ah, sorry for the late reply. I have been busy. Thanks for responding with some good material though!
I read a book once, called Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. The whole book is a story of a wise Gorilla who teaches an apprentice about the history of humanity and the advent of agriculture. How we started becoming "takers" instead of "leavers". Putting everything under lock and key and demanding payment for access to what was originally everyone's and no one's. It was one of the most interesting books I've ever read. I only bring it up because I believe it relates to what you are asking me... I do not think that anyone has any true 'ownership' of anything in this world. We are born into it alone with nothing, and we will leave it alone with nothing. The thought sounds very grim but it is actually quite liberating to me. Possessions aren't everything, and the more people who realize that the better off we become as a whole, I believe.
I kind of like the idea the crypto-sphere is running with... like Proof of Steak voting. Or like Steem with the witnesses. It is decentralized and the heart of it is not a group of people, but an unbiased platform that people from all backgrounds can come together and participate in. Money that is allocated via donations, or payments to participate in the voting process could be budgeted out for different causes (like healthcare, poverty assistance, the elderly, etc...). This of course is not an original thought and is being implemented by a bunch of altcoins already. It's a long shot, but I could see the future of government becoming a decentralized social network. Why not?
I didn't mean to sound salty, my bad.
You're right, there was a lot of different institutions that came together to make this a success. Maybe this is the one version of reality where it just happened to turn out right. I still don't think it impossible for a global network to have happened in any number of other possibilities that could have come together in alternate forms and fashions. I'm a bit of an optimist about potentialities I guess.
Way huge!
Thank you for your reply!
I see no major point I disagree with. As far as steemit goes, I would say it is not practically decentralized in terms of it's government and it is quite close to a parliamentary democracy with people voting for individual MPs. It is not unregulated as there are a lot of regulations and some hardforks introduce really drastic changes.
Because of the book you mentioned, I started thinking, is ownership really a sound concept. If taxation can be viewed as theft, isn't ownership a kind of regulated embezzlement? (just a comparison)
Maybe this could be a topic @nobox could use for a post :)
Nice chatting with you @rocking-dave! I like the way you think.
Thank you, it has been a pleasure! :)