I think a better argument is that it's simply not a voluntary contract between two parties. It's theft by one party that has a monopoly on violence to enforce the theft on the other party. Until one day when the other party stops playing by those rules and shoots back.
"But you can vote to change it." If voting changed anything it would be illegal. Only an idiot believes "voting" means anything in a two party system where both parties are identical, and both are funded and given marching orders by massive international corporations. Dollars > votes and you only have the latter.
Property itself is not a voluntary contract between two parties. If you asked a poor person whether they "volunteer" to let a rich person live in a mansion while they live in a trailer, they'd obviously say no. It's only by a threat of violence that the rich person gets to keep that mansion.
Which is not to say that there aren't strong arguments to be made for a system based on property rights, but the idea that they're more "voluntary" than taxation is ridiculous.
This is one reason I am strongly in favor of open borders.
Based on your comment I'm going to assume you live in the United States, and the only reason your argument has teeth is because you feel stuck under the current system (and rightfully so). If it were easy to opt-out by moving elsewhere then the relationship between government and citizen starts to look a lot more like a voluntary contract.
Really sad to see all the libertarian viewpoints blanket down voted, mostly without any replies.
It really seems like tech has been hit with a wave of pro-big government thinking. My personal theory is that it's younger people who didn't have to deal with the threat of a draft and the baby boomers heavy handed social meddling.
The threat of being forced into a war you don't agree with will make you think twice about funding the entity making that happen. Same with watching decades of ineffective social engineering from above.
I honestly don't get all the libertarian angst about paying taxes.
As a Canadian, I pay a lot of tax. I grumble a bit during tax season - but I am incredibly grateful that I was lucky enough to be born in a prosperous country. A good part of my sucess (education, health care, etc) was paid for by other peoples taxes. So I am quite happy to return the favour.
I also want to live in a society that is compassionate and takes care of those who can not take care of themselves. The libertarian viewpoint seems like "I got mine, so I'm OK".
It's great that you're happy, but you don't have a choice. You'll go to jail if you don't "return favour".
I also want to live in a society that is compassionate and takes care of those who can not take care of themselves.
Simple logic will tell you that if a society is compassionate, it doesn't need force taxation. From dictionary: compassion is a feeling of wanting to help someone who is sick, hungry, in trouble, etc. If you are forced to help, it's not compassion.
S/he does have a choice - move to somewhere without taxes (Vanuatu was mentioned earlier as a possibility).
The fact that non-taxing countries aren't over-run with libertarian immigrants (despite being a tropical paradise!) makes me doubt the practicality of the concept.
It's often not a choice if you do not meet the countries requirements which are generally: be wealthy, have a higher degree and already have secured a job, or be married to a citizen/permanent resident. As another comment mentioned open borders would make it a choice.
A good test case is looking at movement within European countries that allow freedom of movement for other European citizens. I'm sure some people have moved to Andorra, Gilbratar, Liechtenstein, etc. for lower taxes but probably at a lower rate than people moving to places for employment opportunities.
Seriously? How "we're going to take your money and if you don't like it, you can move somewhere else" is even remotely close to being a voluntary choice in your mind?
You can try establishing some moral principles that will justify what government does (seriously, try this exercise), but let's not change meanings of words.
(I really shouldn't get into this discussion, as it seems that the HN crowd is down-voting everyone that slightly disagrees with the Big Government and is not into Populist Governments - whether Republican or Democrat. Alas, those are just Internet points and I do think the conversation can be productive.)
You live in a developed country that is natural resource-rich, with an established middle class and a somewhat functional government.
So on tax season you see lots of services being provided by Public Government and it seems that the price you are paying is reasonable. I really don't see it as someone "returning the favour", but there is no pointing in arguing there.
What can be argued is how much more effective would this creation and redistribution of the wealth be if it weren't
this centralized. For this, most reasonable Libertarians will argue that societies are the most prosperous when there is the minimal amount of interference from the Government.
This is not to say that Governments and Democratic Institutions are not needed. They very much are. Without them, the natural resource-rich countries usually don't even manage to extract the value from the natural resources and transform it in long-lasting wealth. Just look at the Middle East, Venezuela or Brazil.
So, my "Angst" is not about paying taxes, but more about "it keeps growing and growing, how much is enough?" and "are we really better off with all the meddling in general affairs?"
---
I have a private health insurance company here in Germany. Terribly expensive, but so is the public one. The interesting difference is that the private one sent me a check last year because they got some savings and less expenses than expected, so they returning some of my money. Could you imagine anything like that happening with the budget of your country? "We actually managed to build those schools/highways/power plants/sewage treatment plant at a lower cost than expected, here is your share of the savings..."
Was there ANY TIME you saw a career politician speaking anything that resembled "You know what, perhaps society can work out these issues without us having to take a bunch of their resources."? The only place where I see anything like that is Switzerland, which is precisely a country known for being prosperous and NOT natural resource-rich, and with low taxes compared with other countries in the OECD.
You were already born into a rich country. The question is, how can we make existing poorer countries richer? Should a Canadian taxpayer really be funding Bombardier to keep its fat contracts and defend them from competition from Embraer [1]?
> "The libertarian viewpoint seems like "I got mine, so I'm OK."
That is so wrong is even offensive. The viewpoint is more like "I want to get mine, and I want to help the less fortunate with the product of MY work. I don't want to have slacktivists that think that "compassion" is sharing something on the Internet and thinking "someone else has to do something about it".
Compassion can not be mandated or enforced by any Government. Worse, the more we remove individual agency, the worse we all become. We stop thinking about our own actions and start thinking that we are being effective by proxy.
The viewpoint is also "Plenty of people don't get to get their share BECAUSE YOU KEEP THINKING THAT YOU KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM". In the USA, most of the Democrats that supported amnesty for undocumented immigrants were the ones benefiting from their low-wage jobs. The Dems always use amnesty as a way to get votes, but they NEVER introduce any serious immigration reform.
Still, the drive-by downvote is not helpful. It just helps to polarize and removes any chance of discussion. This becomes a gold mine to the populists.
It's funny that you take private health insurance as an example for a better working system. Those private health insurances are only open to better earning individuals. That's a concept which those evil downvoters here on HN do reject.
And it's funny how you'd rather downvote me reflexively instead of finding a way to engage in an useful exchange of ideas. Please, do not downvote because of disagreement. I am voting you up as a sign of confidence that you can do better.
Let's try again, then: please tell me what is inherently bad at having options for "better earning individuals"? And what guarantees can be given by you that your proposal for a "fully-public" healthcare system would be more effective than the existing ones?
It is very easy to say "If Canada/Denmark/Sweden can do it, the US can do it as well", but for every well-reputed public system in the world, there is a bigger number of total disgraceful care systems around the world.
> That's a concept which those evil downvoters here on HN want to prevent.
The evil part is not in the downvoting. The evil part is in joining the mob rule, acting without any critical thought just because and just side along with your group identity, and in the end still consider yourself "being part of the good ones".
What is that you want to prevent?
Me, a supposedly middle-class citizen, of being able to make a choice?
For whose benefit? Will the poor and less fortunate be in a better situation if we force everyone else to be stripped of their choices?
At what cost? Are the countries with actual "universal, single-payer healthcare" being the most effective when managing the resources from their citizens?
> please tell me what is inherently bad at having options for "better earning individuals"?
The problem with that is that such a system doesn't work for a public health insurance if rich people can avoid their contribution to solidarity. If at all you will have system of two classes of people like we had in the middle age. Germany already has this two class system within their health system.
> The problem with that is that such a system doesn't work for a public health insurance if rich people can avoid their contribution to solidarity.
1) There is still nothing bad (immoral) at accepting a society where some people will "avoid their contribution to solidarity". Like I said up-thread: we can't code compassion into law, and every time we tried it, the long term consequences have been more damaging than beneficial.
2) I am not "rich", and I'd rather have the option. I want the best care that is possible at the most affordable price. The "public" system is not really free.
> Germany already has this two class system within their health system.
That is quite a bit of hyperbole, and wrong. There is nothing classist about a business that needs money to operate.
If anything, the real classism in Germany shows when you see something like the Künstlersozialkasse, where the Government pays part of the health insurance only to some type of people.
> That depends on your moral compass and your level of egoism.
When talking about the individual actions, it certainly depends on the individual's moral values, but this is not being discussed at the moment.
In regards on how to turn society values into laws, it really doesn't. I am not saying that the "right thing to do" is to avoid community and eschew solidarity. I am saying that no one should be able to impose their values into any other group, no matter if it is a majority or not.
So, while I (personally) am all for a more equal and compassionate society, I am also saying that we will NOT achieve this while we have so many individuals expecting that this should be enforced by the Government.
> I guess you never tried to get an appointment with a medical specialists in Germany with a non private insurance.
I don't want to. I don't need to. If it's already known that the public service is of such low quality, why would I subject myself to it? I'd rather find ways to help other people to enjoy the higher quality service than forcing everyone to share the misery.
Like I said before, what I want is to get the best service at the most affordable price possible. Being "public" is not a requirement. Where is the guarantee that if we remove the private insurance companies, that the public offering will improve? Look at all the ongoing debate in the UK and the NHS, all of the cuts in their system. How effective is it really?
Also, reverse the roles just for a second: if you were a teenager now and saw that it keeps getting harder and harder to make a career as a Medical Doctor and that the Government is removing any possibility for you to do a job outside of their terms, would you do it?
---
Basically, what you are saying is that the "moral" thing is to have the Government dictating how much people should earn for their job. If you think about it, what you want is to have people that will dedicate their entire lives to become professionals and be forced to serve you and the "poor and less fortunate". And yet you want to pin on me the accusations of being selfish.
You keep mentioning voting. Some people reflexively downvote any post that talks about votes. If you didn't mention voting you may get fewer downvotes.
I don't care about getting the votes. I do care about pointing out irrational behavior.
In this case, I am pretty sure it was the person I responded to because I saw the karma score drop right along with the response to my previous comment.
There are plenty of interesting ideas in the libertarian school of thought - but all I have seen here is the repeated statement that taxation is theft, an idea that would be laughed at at the libertarian party convention. There simply isn't any good response to that viewpoint that hasn't already been posted in comments in this thread and many before it. Repeating the claim doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
Being forced to fight a war etc is something else entirely, and I doubt a comment focused on that would be blanket down voted.
"But you can vote to change it." If voting changed anything it would be illegal. Only an idiot believes "voting" means anything in a two party system where both parties are identical, and both are funded and given marching orders by massive international corporations. Dollars > votes and you only have the latter.