The Politics Thread 4

[Regginator3]

I'm discussing the fact that it would still be wrong

Who says? The guy who took your wallet said it's his reward for demonstrating how awesome he was at stealing it.

Most people one would imagine! Are you implying that a stateless society would no longer have morals? That the morality of theft is dependent on a state existing to enforce the consequences of theft?

[OrangeRKN]

If Bob represented the government without him their would be no Berries for Alice to collect but the system of currency we use is created by the government. It's perfectly possible to go and collect Berries now and pay no tax if you want to.

Now this is more interesting I think. Central to the moral value of taxation is the role of the state as the monetary authority. Essentially, because the state controls currency, by using that currency you are consenting to taxation?

I can see that argument, and probably accept it.

If I start buying everything in bitcoin, and getting paid in bitcoin, which is not centrally controlled by the state, does that mean any attempts by the state to tax me will now be morally wrong in your view?

What if I switch from using pound sterling to dollars? Is it now the US government that I should be paying taxes to?

[Earfolds]

Most people

Which people? It's just you and the guy who took your wallet. Where are these other people coming from?

[That]

I think it's extremely reductive to frame taxation as a moral violation. The context of what tax is and why it exists makes taxation morally neutral - or possibly even positive - in value. I don't think it's helpful to divorce the act of taking someone's money from the context of what taxation is for, and then use arguments about the former to imply the latter is morally negative.

We might agree "punching someone is bad" but I don't think anyone would want to say "punching a crazed axe murderer to defend your family is bad". We would treat that situation with the nuance it deserves, and reducing it to "well someone was still punched so in a sense it's still wrong" doesn't help us understand how the situation actually functions in terms of ethics.

So does the moral value of taxation depend entirely on context i.e. what the money is being spent on? We could say that taxation in North Korea is theft and morally wrong because it funds a rogue state and everything that goes along with it, such as torture, assassinations and the nuclear program?

I don't think it's easy to break any moral question down into simple principles, which is why I feel attempts to do so always come with huge lists of caveats (thou shalt not kill! unless you're a soldier in wartime or it's the last option to defend yourself or you're facing the trolley problem or...).

I think if you want to argue that the act of an in-some-sense-clearly illegitimate government to levy taxation is morally wrong, whereas a government acting in good faith and broadly within the sensibilities of our time levying taxes is morally sound, then that's OK with me.

[Regginator3]

They're may be some other form of currency but it wouldn't be the same money as we have now. At the moment you are explicitly earning pound sterling so you're entering into a contract with the government to allow your self to use their system.

Why would the pound sterling cease to exist if a government was potentially abolished? Would the coins disappear or something?

If you earn bit coin you only have to pay tax when you convert it to pounds sterling.

Not true. You have to pay tax whenever you make a trade, as it counts as disposal, even if it was a direct crypto-to-crypto transfer. EG if I bought 1 Bitcoin when it was £100, let it raise in value to £1000, then buy another ten coins each worth £100, I would have to pay tax on that £900 gain, even if I didn't actually convert it into pounds at any point.

Also you didn't answer my question about what you would consider tax voluntary. If their was a lawless zone would that qualify tax a moral?

That's because I have to admit I don't understand the question.

[Regginator3]

Most people

Which people? It's just you and the guy who took your wallet. Where are these other people coming from?

The other people who exist in society. What are you talking about?

[Tomous]

supply and demand-these aren’t moral judgements in determining worth.

But that's just your opinion. Why isn't supply and demand part of the moral judgement in determining worth? Why is scarcity an "amoral" factor?

Are you suggesting everyone earns what they morally deserve to?

Not necessarily everyone. Not everyone is employed by markets after all. I don't think policemen are paid enough, I don't think firemen are paid enough, I certainly don't think nurses are paid enough.

All of these things have one "employer" in common, and I can assure you, it isn't the market.

I noticed you picked out those two only-what about the others?

By definition, your argument is your pre-tax income is morally yours but you still haven’t explained why. If your argument is purely “because I worked for it” fine. I think here’s a lot of problems with that idea however.

And also, while you did work for it, you did so in a society structured by the government. You benefitted from that structure being maintained by the government. Morally you owe a debt to society for maintaining that structure for you to earn in.

[Moggy]

Regginator3 what would it take for you to except tax isn't theft. For example say you had the opportunity to go and live outside society would that be alright? What if Bristol was designated outside of society and you could go and live there, would that give you a meaningful choice?

No. Why would that be a meaningful choice

Jesus, it isn’t that bad here in Bristol. In fact it’s a great place to live. Although we do still have tax here.

[Earfolds]

Most people

Which people? It's just you and the guy who took your wallet. Where are these other people coming from?

The other people who exist in society. What are you talking about?

I'm just wondering why they're relevant.

[Lex-Man]

They're may be some other form of currency but it wouldn't be the same money as we have now. At the moment you are explicitly earning pound sterling so you're entering into a contract with the government to allow your self to use their system.

Why would the pound sterling cease to exist if a government was potentially abolished? Would the coins disappear or something?

If you earn bit coin you only have to pay tax when you convert it to pounds sterling.

Not true. You have to pay tax whenever you make a trade, as it counts as disposal, even if it was a direct crypto-to-crypto transfer. EG if I bought 1 Bitcoin when it was £100, let it raise in value to £1000, then buy another ten coins each worth £100, I would have to pay tax on that £900 gain, even if I didn't actually convert it into pounds at any point.

Also you didn't answer my question about what you would consider tax voluntary. If their was a lawless zone would that qualify tax a moral?

That's because I have to admit I don't understand the question.

1. The physical notes wouldn't disappear but the system that keep them having worth would disappear. Without the government money would be a bunch of pretty looking paper.

2. I guess it could be considered that the money was transferred into pounds for the transaction to take place, but I see your point.

3. I interested to know at what point you would consider tax voluntary.

Would I have to be able to earn money and not pay tax for you to consider tax not to be theft? What if I was given the choice to leave society and live in a forest, would that be enough to mean that tax was voluntary because I have two options? What if part of the country didn't receive any help from central government and I could live there and not pay tax, would that make tax voluntary? What if I could somehow be tagged outside taxation where I would receive no help from government (this is really impossible but hey) but could still earn money, would that make tax voluntary?

[Regginator3]

I noticed you picked out those two only-what about the others?

By definition, your argument is your pre-tax income is morally yours but you still haven’t explained why. If your argument is purely “because I worked for it” fine. I think here’s a lot of problems with that idea however.

It's not just "because I worked for it", though that is evidently the main part, but the actual value is morally mine because I have a unique skillset in a field with a constant demand and a limited supply.

And also, while you did work for it, you did so in a society structured by the government. You benefitted from that structure being maintained by the government. Morally you owe a debt to society for maintaining that structure for you to earn in.

The vast vast majority of our society is structured by the free market, not by the government. Our currency wouldn't stop existing if we didn't have a government, banks wouldn't stop existing if we didn't have a government, employees wouldn't stop existing if we abolished the government, the roads would not suddenly have their development reversed if we didn't have a government... Now, there would be the possibility of the less vulnerable not having any income because of the cancellation of welfare, which is a serious point, however some would argue that private charities would have more space to grow and help more of these people anyway. Of course, it wouldn't be as reliable as a government. Either way, I doubt the entire structure of society would collapse without a government like a lot of people think.

[Lex-Man]

Regginator3 what would it take for you to except tax isn't theft. For example say you had the opportunity to go and live outside society would that be alright? What if Bristol was designated outside of society and you could go and live there, would that give you a meaningful choice?

No. Why would that be a meaningful choice

Jesus, it isn’t that bad here in Bristol. In fact it’s a great place to live. Although we do still have tax here.

But under this system you could go to Bristol and earn money and not pay tax but you wouldn't have things like paved roads, or a fire department unless you voluntarily paid a surcharge for them. Although how you would stop people using roads they hadn't paid for would be interesting.

[<]:^D]

[Moggy]

Regginator3 what would it take for you to except tax isn't theft. For example say you had the opportunity to go and live outside society would that be alright? What if Bristol was designated outside of society and you could go and live there, would that give you a meaningful choice?

No. Why would that be a meaningful choice

Jesus, it isn’t that bad here in Bristol. In fact it’s a great place to live. Although we do still have tax here.

But under this system you could go to Bristol and earn money and not pay tax but you wouldn't have things like paved roads, or a fire department unless you voluntarily paid a surcharge for them. Although how you would stop people using roads they hadn't paid for would be interesting.

Why does Regginator3 want to take away my paved roads and fire department?

strawberry float off over to Swindon if you want to do gooseberry fool like that.

[Lex-Man]

Regginator3 what would it take for you to except tax isn't theft. For example say you had the opportunity to go and live outside society would that be alright? What if Bristol was designated outside of society and you could go and live there, would that give you a meaningful choice?

No. Why would that be a meaningful choice

Jesus, it isn’t that bad here in Bristol. In fact it’s a great place to live. Although we do still have tax here.

But under this system you could go to Bristol and earn money and not pay tax but you wouldn't have things like paved roads, or a fire department unless you voluntarily paid a surcharge for them. Although how you would stop people using roads they hadn't paid for would be interesting.

Why does Regginator3 want to take away my paved roads and fire department?

strawberry float off over to Swindon if you want to do gooseberry fool like that.

To be fair Swindon is a pretty good argument against tax. I mean we paid for that gooseberry fool.

How about Miltion Keynes, the people who choice to live there don't really deserve protection.

[Hexx]

Swindon doesn’t have paved roads silly.

And the fire departnent gave in and disbanded. Too much oil drum fires to contain.

[Vermilion]

Jesus, it isn’t that bad here in Bristol. In fact it’s a great place to live.

Bristol's nice, i like the harbour festival, and out at Cribbs there's an Aardman Animations store.

Why does Regginator3 want to take away my paved roads and fire department?

strawberry float off over to Swindon if you want to do gooseberry fool like that.

Swindon? Don't you mean Trowbridge?

How about Miltion Keynes, the people who choice to live there don't really deserve protection.

I liked Milton Keynes, they had concrete cows

[Regginator3]

Most people

Which people? It's just you and the guy who took your wallet. Where are these other people coming from?

The other people who exist in society. What are you talking about?

I'm just wondering why they're relevant.

Because they're still the people in the society who give words meanings, and who hold opinions on morals. So are you suggesting morals wouldn't exist in a world without the state?

1. The physical notes wouldn't disappear but the system that keep them having worth would disappear. Without the government money would be a bunch of pretty looking paper.

I still don't get what you mean, though. How is it the government that gives the pound worth? The value of the pound is literally dependent on the markets, not the government. I'm not saying there would be no period of instability while transitioning to this potential society due to potential problems that could arise, but it isn't the government that gives the pound worth. If anything it's almost always the reverse - the government impacts value of the pound negatively.

But under this system you could go to Bristol and earn money and not pay tax but you wouldn't have things like paved roads, or a fire department unless you voluntarily paid a surcharge for them. Although how you would stop people using roads they hadn't paid for would be interesting.

Firstly that sounds like Bristol anyway. Secondly why wouldn't we have paved roads? We would, they'd just be owned privately and presumably there would be a toll system to pay for them. Not much different from road tax. If anything it'd be cheaper, considering the market value would determine the price (with, obviously, a small profit for the companies to boot since if there wasn't any there would be no incentive).

[Return_of_the_STAR]

Milton Keynes is great, I love it.

[Moggy]

Firstly that sounds like Bristol anyway. Secondly why wouldn't we have paved roads? We would, they'd just be owned privately and presumably there would be a toll system to pay for them. Not much different from road tax. If anything it'd be cheaper, considering the market value would determine the price (with, obviously, a small profit for the companies to boot since if there wasn't any there would be no incentive).

Firstly, strawberry float you.

Secondly, that’s a ridiculous system and would never work. Who would own the land the roads were on? Would you have to pay 25 tolls as the road you’re on crosses over various landowners? And the market would set the price, but each road would be a monopoly and as you’d have no choice but to pay (to get to wherever you want to go) they’d charge a premium, because what else are you going to?