What is the difference betwwen these two scenarios?

[phage]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I work at a VA hospital. I can guarantee you that there are ways in which tax dollars do a lot of good. The idea that a complex society can be run without some form of taxation is naive.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why stop at the VA hospital, why not nationalize all hospitals? And banks... and oil companies... The money will be used for good!

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I realize you are not advocating that sort of change but then again I am of a different political persuasion.

However, for those who would do away with taxes completely-How do you run a modern society such as that in any western country.

[TomCollins]

1% tarriff on anything coming into or out of this country. Should be able to pay for a military.

[phage]

So, in fact you are in favour of some sort of government collection of money that would be distributed at their discretion.

[cardcounter0]

Scenario 1) The taxes are taken by a govt. established by a vote of the people, and run by people who are elected by a vote of the people. The money is spent by those same people who have to be periodically re-elected by a vote of the people.

Scenario 2) You have no voice in who breaks into your house. You have no voice in how much they take. You have no voice in who they donate the money too.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Scenario 1) The taxes are taken by a govt. established by a vote of the people, and run by people who are elected by a vote of the people. The money is spent by those same people who have to be periodically re-elected by a vote of the people.

Scenario 2) You have no voice in who breaks into your house. You have no voice in how much they take. You have no voice in who they donate the money too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you clearly aren't a Macho-Man, allow me to explain why Scenario 2 is inconceivable to the "NO TAXES! IT'S STEALING!" crowd:

No one would EVER DARE cross paths with these no-government-tough guys, because without the government, no one would be able to feminize them, and tell them which guns (and other defense machinery) they can and can't buy.

Ergo, these warriors will arms themselves to the hilt to protect hearth and home, and ain't no one ever gonna' try to break into their house, lest they have to deal with them, and their heavily armed and defended home.

Long story short, real men don't need the government -- and taking taxes from a real man is tantamount to cutting off his penis, because it’s just your typical girly-type thieving, which takes a man’s hard earned cash and doles it out to lazy bums who don’t do man’s work, and who don’t do what’s necessary to take care of their family (which real men do).

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Who pays for it then? How do the services differ for those who choose to pay and those who do not? If everyone but me agreed to pay for defense, how is another country going to invade my property but not yours? What about when more people wise up and stop paying?


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Murphy6.pdf

"The existence of the insurance and call option markets ensure that the standard zero defense outcome cannot be a market equilibrium."

[ QUOTE ]
Good question. I would add what if one person has all or a vast majority of the money? What if he says he'll pay for the protection of all, and if not he'll let the others invade? What if he decides that his money equals power and wants control over those with no wherewithal to stop him?
What if he uses his money for a propaganda campaigns?

[/ QUOTE ]

What if that happens in a state-dominated system? Geez, if you're going to come up with a fantasyland edge case, at least come up with one that doesn't break down in a statist system, too.

How is someone going to obtain the "vast majority of money" anyway?

[Gunny Highway]

Did anyone read what was posed here? This thread was not about why taxes do or do not have to occur. It was about how are these two scenarios different.

Saying we have to tax to provide govt. services is no different than saying a poor person has to steal to survive. That's all the govt. is doing; perpetuating itself through theft.

[Gunny Highway]

[ QUOTE ]
Where does the money that pays you jarheads come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread is not about where it comes from. I know where it comes from. That doesn't make it right.

But if govt. services were cut back to only providing for the common defense, some federal law enforcement, and a few others, those could be paid for by an inflation tax, which although it is a form of taxation is at least spread equally and does not involve the govt. demanding the money directly.

[Gunny Highway]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I take the view that taxation is nothing more than theft

[/ QUOTE ]

No you don't. You pretend that you do to try to sound tough about taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very unlike you, Mr. Blues. Your arguments are normally well thought out, this one is not. It is a bad one-liner that I suppose you thought was clever, but is really just dumb. You do not know me or my beliefs, and in this case you're just wrong.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Saying we have to tax to provide govt. services is no different than saying a poor person has to steal to survive. That's all the govt. is doing; perpetuating itself through theft.

[/ QUOTE ]

But for the fact that the people have agreed to the existence of the government and its needs to support itself both in the establishment of the constitution and in the election of individuals who have created our laws. Taxes are part of a social compact that we have made (or at least our predecessors have made.) I really don't know what to tell you if you can't (or pretend you can't) see the difference.

Essentially, we get the government that we've asked for. The fact that you hold a minority position and can't get the government to change is part of living in a democratic republic.