> [Case] > how can you say that you are being "forced" to pay taxes when you > voluntarily participate in the system? [Craig] Simple. Let's say I offer to build a cabinet for you at a certain price. If I make a profit on the job, the government orders me to give a portion to them, else they will forcibly take it from me. The former transaction is voluntary (either party can reject the offer without being subject to force). The latter is not.
[Case] When you and I engage in such a transaction we do so not only with the permission but under the protection of the government. Now normally if it just between us, we probably don't bother reporting it to the IRS but if you are conducting business with the public you are participating voluntarily in the economic system and as such are obligated to play by the rules. Since you have a voice in your government and are under no obligation to participate in the economic syste, it is hard to say you are forced. [Case] > Beyond this do you seriously think society has no obligation to those who > can not take care of themselves. [Craig] I hope I have not given the impression that I am not serious. [Case] That's what I was afraid of. [Case] > Children, the disabled, the elderly, we should just let them starve? [Craig] No. But neither should we be forced to remedy the situation. [Case] As a citizen you are of course free to hold such views. Thankfully you remain, for the time being, in the minority. Can you think of a single civilized society where such view predominates? [Arlo] > Should we privatize the military? > Should we defund public lands and roads (make them all into private tollways)? > Should we disband the public libraries and open B&Ns? > > Why are these not examples of "immoral force" against you? > > Why should someone who doesn't support the military be forced to pay for it? > Isn't that "immoral" ? [Craig] I am not an anarchist. I think a minimal state can be justified (see Robert Nozick, "Anarchy, State and Utopia"). [Case] Thanks for the tip I am really interested in where this comes from. I am vaguely familiar with Nozick and his response to Rawls. Decent of him to allow us a "minimal state". [Craig] I repeat my proposal: At age 18 each person selects 1 of 2 options: Option 1: A portion of one's income goes into Fund A for essential services that are provided in common (e.g., defense, police, fire, government, courts, infrastructure). Another portion goes into a separate Fund B which is distributed only to those who have selected Option 1 in need of e.g., food, shelter, clothing, education, health care. The rest is kept. Option 2: A portion goes into Fund A; the rest is kept. [Case] While I think this is a harebrained notion on a par with the Flat Tax, you are certainly free to peddle it in the market place of ideas. You could run for congress or try and sell it to your representatives. But in the mean time it seems a little lame to offer it up as an argument against what is practiced throughout the developed world. moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
