I have a question for the libertarians of the world. Is there any moral taxation or is it all theft?
If yes then how does the government make any money at all ?
I'm not a Lolobtarian but I'd suggest either State Capitalism or a social credit monetary policy.
>>58974138
>Is there any moral taxation or is it all theft?
If an individual's property is being taken against their will then it is theft. If I would voluntarily give you, say, 30% of my income to fund programs and services like courts, the military, fire departments, etc., then it is not theft.
>If yes then how does the government make any money at all?
Voluntarism.
>>58974376
How does that work?
>>58974138
>If yes then how does the government make any money at all ?
Tariffs, sales tax, carbon tax, voluntary stuff like that.
Income tax is the devil!
>>58974138
>how does the government make any money at all ?
Objectivists say that govt should fund itself through donations and by charging for some services.
But the point is that a libertarian type of govt that only does what it should do is very easy to fund because it needs a lot less money if you eliminate welfare, subsidies and all the other non libertarian crap. Funding a minarchist govt is not difficult.
It doesn't.
You can contribute money voluntarily, but that's not taxation, it's a paid service.
If you are a "night watchman" libertarian then you compromise that 1% or whatever of taxation is necessary to participate in the society. So you can live in the woods and eat bark and such, but no societial obligations.
true libertarians always trend towards minarchism, and then anarachism if they are real niggas
>>58974470
So why would I pay them anything but still be able to receive the benefits?
We could charge sales tax, gas tax, and road tax.
Carbon tax is fucking stupid.
We could also charge less gas tax, if you have solar panels on your car, or on your home. We could charge different road tax levels for different vehicles, so small cars less tax, big trucks, most tax.
We could also not do road tax and just do toll roads, so every car has a transponder and it charges like $.05 per mile driven or something. 10,000 miles a year = $500 or something like that. If you drive less, you pay less, so pay for what you use, which is most fair.
Other things like social services would be state or municipal run, so they can ask for donations from people, or people who just want to help can do so voluntarily.
There's also things like, when people get their tax return, we could like offer a box, that says do you want to donate your tax return? Most people would do that if the tax return is small, and you could use it for social security or things like that.
The only thing that might be tricky is military for the country, since its expensive and funding it would require some sort of tax, but perhaps like, country could put that duty on the state/province and they could come up with their own tax, so obviously richer states would be stronger.. Something like that could work.
>>58974813
We could publish a list with what each of us contributes, and if you don't contribute anything we will be really nasty to you and wont invite you to bbq.
>>58975001
^
Only those who contribute will be part of society or communities, those who don't, will have to live off the grid basically.
>>58974473
State Capitalism is the government owning business or industry, also know as socialism.
Some examples are, Saudi Aramco, Most Canadian electrical producers, The East India Company. They compete in the free market and earn revenue for the government. It's fully possible for the government to operate just on those businesses alone and collect no taxes of any kind.
Social credit is a bit more complicated, the basic idea is if you take the total income of a company it will always be higher than the wages and compensation paid to owners/workers. That is income - wages/dividends will be greater than zero if the company isn't going bankrupt. So that leads to the question how can a company earn more money than is paid out to people that actually consume things?
The answer currently is by debt spending. We collectively borrow more and more money to makeup the gap between what we have and what we want and need. Currently the total debt in the US from all sources is about 70 trillion. An alternative solution is the creation of currency in exact balance between the sale - wages. This creates non inflationary non debt currency which the government could use for:
1: Universal basic income
2: Funding government operations
3: Negative sales tax
Pic related is a subset of this gap.
If you say but that's going to cause inflation, I will ask you how much currency does the Federal Reserve currently create every year?(include the multiplication of fractional reserve banking in that calculation)
Libertarians can't be nationalists.
Libertarians are minarchists not anarchists.
While we believe in the least amount of taxing as possible, there would still be taxing.
You're better off asking an anarchist.
>>58974970
>We could also charge less gas tax, if you have solar panels on your car, or on your home.
Why? Solar panels objectively make peak power more expensive,
Also you can avoid 100% of your spying with transponders and intrusive vehicle type taxes by just charging a fuel tax. Drive more pay more, Drive a more energy intensive vehicle pay more.
I have a question lolbertarians, why aren't there any women in your party? Are they just too stupid for it or something?
>>58974138
Only for necessary public goods such as military expenditures, policing, firefighters, courts, public libraries (so the public has unfettered access to knowledge), etc. This is mostly in the domain of State and local governments.
It ventures into thievery when the government takes more than it needs to buy extra privileges for constituents. Anything that is spent beyond what is necessary to protect life, liberty, property (and, if you ask me, basic access to educational material) is thievery.
And when I say "basic access", I mean free access to books at any time, especially the text of our founding documents. Not "free college". I'm very much a Ben Franklin type of classic liberal. Libertarians like that typically believe that there are certain public goods that are necessities within the scope of (generally more localized) government.
Still, the government needs to be contained to its necessary scope only. "Free" health care and "free" college are, for example, wastes of taxpayer dollars because that is not the proper scope of government and are both done (arguably more effectively) by private entities. Thus, the funds spent on these are stolen from the taxpayer as the expense was not proper for the government to make.
Also, income taxation is quite honestly the devil.
>>58975203
That's a lie. You are a liar.
>>58975581
But borders prevent free trade.
>>58975350
Yeah I understand but like, if the government is very small, government "spying" wouldn't exist. At least, if I was running the country, it wouldn't happen. But I see your point as to how it could happen, so yeah, more fuel tax, but the thing is, how much can we go to before people start thinking its too much? I think it's a better ploy to give more options to people, more than one way to do the same things, some cheaper, some more expensive, so people can decide which is more convenient for them.
We could offer public transport, 10 cents a mile. So instead of paying for a car, its the same to just pay for public transit, and people would just swipe in and swipe off with a card or their phone or something like that.
The government could own one hospital, one police station, one fire station, one school, and one public transport thing, in every big city. So people have the option to use the government version, OR they could use other things like Uber and stuff. So people who want to maybe support their government will use the govt stuff, people who don't want too that day, use private stuff.
My thinking is, give people choices, because they'll use everything either way, and you're still getting money, so people can't say things are too expensive since there's a lot of options available to them.
>>58975621
Without borders, you don't have a nation.
Besides, you can trade freely within the borders, plus you can still trade across borders, it's just a little harder. But I'm not going to lose sleep because we don't forfeit national sovereignty over Joe in Texas not giving American money to Mexican traders.
roads
>>58974138
>moral taxation
I assume you mean taxation that is morally justified.
I'd say that all taxation is theft, and that SOME theft is morally justified. The government does need to get income from somewhere. However, taxation should be limited to certain forms and contained very strictly. Taxation can also help curb the pollution problems that capitalist societies tend to face (China, Industrial-era Britain).
In a utopian society, you wouldn't need taxes. But that is unrealistic.
>>58975837
But I never signed a contract to be contained within these borders. That's illegal.
>>58975203
Incorrect.
>not understanding that legally guaranteed civil liberties are not necessarily extended to non-citizens
>>58975763
You are tracking the movements of people for the reason of collecting taxes, that same information will be first used by the police to hunt down criminals then by the government to track 'terrorists'.
Having your multilevel tax code for different types of vehicles is an unnecessary complication when you can just put a simple tax on the fuel and be done with it.
>I think it's a better ploy to give more options to people, more than one way to do the same things, some cheaper, some more expensive, so people can decide which is more convenient for them.
The fuel tax already does this.
>We could offer public transport, 10 cents a mile. So instead of paying for a car, its the same to just pay for public transit, and people would just swipe in and swipe off with a card or their phone or something like that.
Only if the public transport pays the same fuel tax, and a similar electric fuel tax if they don't burn fuel.
>My thinking is, give people choices
Your thinking is give people only the choices I want to give them. I'm giving them an unlimited number of choices and I don't need to keep making new laws to account for the changes. Fuel is fuel we tax the energy to do something. People can select the best option for them, you just give people a list to pick from.
>>58974530
>carbon tax
>>58974138
That's pretty inaccurate. Government regulated morality belongs on the left as much as it does on the right, while personal freedom belongs on the right. Seperation of church and state is also an issue that the right doesn't contest, while a lot of people on the right also oppose corporate welfare.
Tax commerce; not labor or property.
>>58976027
Get over it.You're a U.S. citizen and have to follow constitutional U.S. laws, including border laws.
>>58976159
A better name is the tax energy. That's really what almost all carbon taxes do.
The use of carbon taxes is simply a end run on a way to tax figuratively everything.
>>58976097
It's my legal right to be able to travel.
I wouldn't trust a private corporation to manage a police force or fire department if that's what you're asking.
>>58976140
Lol no the cards would not be fucking traceable to you. You buy the cards from stores like convenience stores and shit, and you just load it into your transponder using a code and your transponder has $50 or whatever
So you just keep driving and we'll have sensors or some shit every 5 miles in the road that senses a car passed with a transponder and takes 5 cents off or whatever
Of course the public transport would pay the same tax, so its still "fair" but they could charge 10 cents instead so it can profit some. Also since you're not using your own car, its still a cost saving since running a car is more than 10 cents per mile.
It's not complicated to implement, bigger cars could pay 7 cents maybe, since they do more damage to roads than smaller vehicles.
I don't see how you're giving people more choice, you're taxing them a lot on fuel, which I find stupid, because why tax people and show them how much they're paying more for fuel, when you could charge them really little in public transit or road tax and just charge little or no fuel tax. It makes society more happy to pay road tax than it does fuel tax which can be like 50% sometimes.
>>58976538
Uh, the Roman fire departments never started fires to keep business flowing. That's a statist lie.
>Left
>personal freedom
lol
>>58976428
Which is why it is disgusting. It's also rooted in the idea that high emission countries like the U.S. need to give money to unindustrialized shitholes.
morals are a funny thing
I like to separate them into two categories: what I believe to be moral, and what the majority believes to be moral
this is important because if you don't believe in objective morality then morals are intersubjective (decided by consensus)
so while I may personally believe that most taxation is immoral, and that the government shouldn't be allowed to tax income, that's not what the majority of people believe
as a libertarian that believes in democracy first, it's easy to reconcile my belief that taxing income should be considered theft with the reality that it isn't.
>Is there any moral taxation or is it all theft?
Taxing land ownership/land use seems like the fairest way to gather taxes, since it's a finite resource that we all share. Not all land would be treated the same (so farmers don't get screwed over, for example) and people should still get a basic personal amount. But there could be a lot of money raised by taxing industry that stakes claims on a country's natural resources, and also some money made by taxing wealthy individuals that choose to have large homes and estates.
tl;dr
for a more developed plan to tax land use:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
>>58976467
>>58976467
Not if you aren't a citizen. The only right you have is right into the gas chamber m9.
>>58976579
>Lol no the cards would not be fucking traceable to you. You buy the cards from stores like convenience stores and shit, and you just load it into your transponder using a code and your transponder has $50 or whatever
>So you just keep driving and we'll have sensors or some shit every 5 miles in the road that senses a car passed with a transponder and takes 5 cents off or whatever
And that tracks your vehicle and requires a few trillion dollars to install the system on all the roads and the communicate the proper encryption decryption codes which totally will not be hacked. Also what stops me from dodging that tax transponders by blocking the unit on my car?
A fuel tax is way easier to implement.
>Of course the public transport would pay the same tax, so its still "fair" but they could charge 10 cents instead so it can profit some. Also since you're not using your own car, its still a cost saving since running a car is more than 10 cents per mile.
I'd only support public transport if it paid 100% of the taxes private vehicles paid and was 100% self financing.
>It's not complicated to implement, bigger cars could pay 7 cents maybe, since they do more damage to roads than smaller vehicles.
A bigger car will consume more fuel, fuel tax takes care of it.
>I don't see how you're giving people more choice, you're taxing them a lot on fuel,
I don't want to fund 100% of society on transport taxes, that's your stupid idea.
>which I find stupid, because why tax people and show them how much they're paying more for fuel, when you could charge them really little in public transit or road tax and just charge little or no fuel tax. It makes society more happy to pay road tax than it does fuel tax which can be like 50% sometimes.
If you need 100 units of income, getting it from 50 sources rather than 2 doesn't change that you still need 100 units.
A fuel tax adjusts for use and efficiency.
>>58976680
Most governments pocket the carbon tax. I don't think any give the money away, outside of maybe Sweden.
>>58977282
You know, I gotta admit, a fuel tax seems pretty smart, anon. Did you come up with this idea or is there a source you could share? I'm intrigued.
>>58977495
>You know, I gotta admit, a fuel tax seems pretty smart, anon. Did you come up with this idea or is there a source you could share? I'm intrigued.
Bit of both.
It's an energy tax in reality. With vehicles it's the most fair way to fund stuff like roads and maintenance. The more you drive the more you pay. The higher your costs the more you pass on to your customers. The more efficient you are the more you save. By extending it to all fuel types you can fairly balance between the different industry types.
I hate getting hit with a vehicle 'registration' tax every year just for owing a car that I could drive on a road. It's not registering anything beyond the first time so it's just a fucking cash grab. If think that public transport should be self funding with a few concessions made for start up loans to buy and build the network.
The energy tax idea breaks down a bit when you start looking at what amount of energy an industry uses. For example a paper and pulp mill uses massive amounts of power to make paper, but they get around a lot of that cost by burning the unusable wood waste for power. Should we tax on their energy costs like we tax a machine shop? How about aluminum smelters?
I'd like to expand the energy tax out more but it would wildly change the prices of many common goods. But for now I think a fuel tax is the only fair way to fund roads. Also a set amount not a % based tax, and that tax may only be used for roads and their upkeep.
>>58976927
I never signed a contract. Oppression!
>>58976305
not op but chart is more or less accurate for the present paradigm of left/right in US. elsewhere or even 10 years ago would not apply as easily
I don't think most libertarians have a problem with taxes, so long as the trend is moving toward zero and not the other direction.
>>58980389
Yeah, this is basically right.
>>58977323
But there are programs in place where you can get emission credits by investing in third world countries and lowering theirs. You could have some guy in some shithole who wants to make a a coal power plant, and if you can give them the tech investment to reduce their projected emissions you get credits.
Minimum taxation for emergency medical, drug subs also roading and other basics.
No elective "I want to change my gender surgery"
No I'm getting welfare for 50 years.
>>58974530
How is carbon tax voluntary?
Methinks ya dun goofed
>>58974138
>Is there any moral taxation or is it all theft?
Make taxes a subscription based service where you can selectively opt for which portions of the budget you are willing to fund at the local, state, and federal levels.
>>58974138
>Is there any moral taxation or is it all theft?
Sales taxes. People choose to pay those, as people choose to pay the cost for goods.
In fact, one can easily say that any government that can't fund itself entirely on a 15% sales tax is spending too much fucking money and needs to be downsized.
>>58974138
Libertarianism is a meme like socialism, sounds good on paper but reality and distilled human nature doesn't give a shit about what sounds nice.
Reminder that every time people change what works to what sounds nice, millions suffer.
>>58974813
Why can't they simply not recieve the benefits if they don't pay for any?
Add more reward for voluntarily paying taxes, but don't PUNISH for not paying taxes.
Establish what are each individuals basic human rights, and everything else is a privileged to earn.
>>58974138
not a libertarian in the modern american sense (im no SJW or anything), but I believe that taxation would be "moral" only if you had the option to opt out of it (since theft == removal of property without agreement). Obviously that creates new issues that are debatable, but the fact is this, taxation is theft.
Also, if taxation is theft, income taxation is armed robbery.
>>58975203
That's incorrect, I am an anarchist & a nationalist. Multiculturalism == gommies, liberals etc is a fucking meme, and anyone who has studied the least bit of those theories will agree with me.
>>58974138
I pick the side named after being correct
>>58980076
If you don't sign said contract, you have nothing to do around here in the first place
>>58983760
The vendor doesn't have the option not to charge them without being threatened with prison. Not very moral.
>>58974138
Taxation does need to happen to address public goods issues. However Liberals use this justification for tremendous overreach and expansion. Many issues of public goods use can be solved with modern technology. Road usage can be monitored with RFID for example.
>>58986732
I'm just saying what the most moral form of taxation is.
There's ways to fund government without taxes. Mercenary military forces are an example.
>>58985732
>Why can't they simply not recieve the benefits if they don't pay for any?
The 'free rider' problem. The nature of most public goods is that they are non-excludable. Consider street lights for a minute. Everyone that walks under a street light enjoys the benefit it brings. It is proven, after all, that neighborhoods with street lights have significantly less muggings and burglaries than those without. If payment for the street lights was optional, how many people would voluntarily pay? Would you pay - knowing you would still get to "use" the street lights anyway? Replace the word street light with words like roads, police, parks and military, and you start to see how a taxless society would fall apart.
This is the economist's sole reasoning for the existence of governments. It is true that the government does a lot of very bad things, and that taxes create a huge burden on society, and redistribution of wealth on which we see in the western world is an abhorrent travesty. But anarchy and full privatization is not the answer. If anything, AN-CAP is a great idea on paper, like communism... just at the opposite extreme. Government and politics, like all things in life, work best in moderation.
>>58974138
The Jeffersonian answer is that taxation should be highly local (for the most part) so that individuals have the most say over how it's being levied and then spent.
Obviously we're rather divorced from the original idea.
>>58986479
>I am an anarchist & a nationalist
>nationalist: "I must defend my nation and its people by securing my borders, and making my nation exceptional and the greatest it can be!"
>anarchist: "Fuck all nations and borders"
No wonder Greece's economy is in the shitter, their people don't understand even the most basic terminologies related to economy and government. Maximum hue.
>>58974376
u tha duke
>>58987869
>anarchist: "Fuck all nations and borders"
Again, you are saying that anarchism isnt nationalism because anarchism isnt nationalism. Thats not how arguments work.
You are arguing about nations in the capitalistic & imperialistic sense, meaning that nations are set apart by borders, and that if I was born 5 meters away from the border in the wrong direction, I wouldn't e.g. be Greek.
If you had ever studied history you would know that nations are set apart by language, culture, religion etc, not by a superficial line that is drawn on the sand by imperialists.
In fact, your stance is a lot more like "fuck all nations" than mine, since you connect the nation with its borders, therefore saying fuck you to any nation that is suppressed and doesn't have its own borders (e.g. Kurds, Pomaks, Catalans and a bunch of others)
>>58987593
>highly local
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom
"Ostrom cautioned against single governmental units at global level to solve the collective action problem of coordinating work against environmental destruction. Partly, this is due to their complexity, and partly to the diversity of actors involved. Her proposal was that of a polycentric approach, where key management decisions should be made as close to the scene of events and the actors involved as possible."
of course Ostrom is talking about environmental l protection and not lighthouses, regulatory systems, or ballistic missile defense networks but her observations should reveal some truths about maintain public assets.
>>58974138
Think about it, the government provides a service for it's citizens (customers). Therefore, it should charge for the various services at the point of sale.
What do I mean by that? Well, when you go to a laundromat, they charge a flat rate. They don't ask you what your income is and take a percentage. The government needs to work in a similar fashion, charge directly for the service provided.
So the government defends the land; it should pay for this with a land tax. The government provides security to citizens traveling abroad. It should charge a Visa tax. The government provides security to the stock market; it should pay for this with a capital gains tax. In every instance, the government should charge directly for the service provided.
>>58988861
>If you had ever studied history you would know that nations are set apart by language, culture, religion etc, not by a superficial line that is drawn on the sand by imperialists.
If you had ever studied history you would know that cultures, languages, and religions that don't draw lines in the sand to be backed by violence get conquered and disappear.
Your political views are nonsense and amount to "I'm an anarcho-cuckolding fan"
Pic related, it's what happens to people like you in "history"
>>58988861
Your first post that I replied to what the dumbest thing I read all day, then this post was the second dumbest thing I've read all day.
You don't even know what you want. You need to do some more reading lad, because you're trying to support two extremes that are polar opposite, and are incompatible. You literally can not have a nationalist anarchy.
>>58989678
This this and more of this.
Ultra libertarians and ancaps are merchant useful idiots that only serve to undermine western civilization. They are the enemy.
>>58975199
What would be wrong with State capitalism? That sounds kinda neat.
>>58983020
Who forces you to use or do things that produce carbon?
>>58990490
And what is your answer to this?
Government?
Good luck with that. It's doing a swell job all across the US, Canada, Australia, and the EU.
>>58990569
Nothing, it always worked well when it was applied. Just look at the power China can muster right now, that's what state capitalism is capable of.
>>58989678
you are talking about eliminating borders in the current world situation and with the current political systems, which I never even implied. Anarchy (like any political system) comes with a bunch of prerequisites, taking one or two out of context and saying "that wouldn't work today! Anarchy is for cucks!" is stupid and ignorant.
>>58990389
Again, no arguments. Borders are to seperate the land that the imperialists have divided between them. Borders are needed nowadays to secure a society from a) invaders and b) excessive immigration from different societies, that will change the current condition of the society to the worse.
In a global anarchistic society there would be no capitalists & imperialists, meaning that there would be no invaders, and there would be no excessive immigration (unless you believe that the immigration crisis we are facing today isn't because the EU & US capitalists are in need of cheap & effective labor, which the entitled white working class can no longer provide, since by their fighting through the ages they have achieved some rights (8 hour day, minimum wage etc) that the kid from somalia has never even heard of).
Stop strawmanning faggots.
>>58989596
But the fact is most people who aren't direct users of public goods and services still benefit from their existence. Roads man, even if you don't drive... you still buy your groceries from a store that had its goods delivered by trucks on roads. You can't just charge drivers, because the whole society benefits from roads. You have to charge everybody. Or would you prefer EVERY road be a toll road? Would interstate highways or city freeways exist under this model? What about the administrative burden of trying to collect for every bit of every road in a big city? There would be no central planning, just a hidgepodge of private contractors building roads for whoever pays for them. How would people of different neighborhoods and areas of a city come to an agreement on where new roads should be built or what roads need to be re-surfaced?
>inb4 "MUH ROADS"
The "free rider dilemma", as explained in a previous post (and every principles of economics text book) can be applied to most public goods.
Before you get all uppity, understand that I, myself, am a libertarian. The problem is that none of can figure out HOW MUCH smaller the government oughta be. What SHOULD the government provide for its citizens. Some libertarians want a complete fuck off and privatization. We can privatize a lot of the things the government does, using your model (so I don't completely disagree with you) But I'm just here proving the point that libertarians are not anarchists. I'm ok with limited taxes for essential public goods, but believe that most spending could be drastically reduced, and agree with pretty much everything in the center columns of OP's image.
>>58991154
>In a global anarchistic society there would be no capitalists & imperialists
>anarchy
>no capitalists
>meaning that there would be no invaders
>anarchy
>no warlords taking control of specific places then invading other places
>and there would be no excessive immigration
>anarchy
>no free movement of people
Ok bud. I can see now that you're on some space-age star trek utopia shit now. When you've gone and studied economics come back and let us know what you found out. Sorry for being so demeaning, it's hard to swallow that people can hold such irrational beliefs.
>Right: Government controlled morality
>>58992117
You are implying that an anarchistic society wouldn't be able to defend itself. Post by post, you prove that you don't know anything about anarchy and its foundations, and you are trying to adapt your personal impression of it to the world and find flaws.
Also
>anarchy
>no free movement of people
In contrast with today, that people can't move freely? You ever heard of tourists?
We are talking solely about immigration, and in an anarchistic society if you immigrate and don't care for the local society, you will soon be expelled and spat out of the community. But I know, I know, today's statist system does the same right? It sends immigrants that upset the community away, r-right?
>>58974138
The things on this graphic have shifted dramatically. A lot of the foreign policy is either the same between left and right, or has actually flip flopped. See Trump vs. Hillary on foreign intervention.
>>58991320
The thing is that if there is a grocery store that get's it's products delivered by road, this, correctly, benefits you. But you would pay for it through higher grocery prices.This effect is internalized.
The problem with the 'free rider's dilemma' of public goods is that in fact, there are almost no pure pubic goods and in fact we can find instances of private roads all around the world. We can even find lighthouses (there are theoretically, at least, ways to charge for it), firefighters, education (... England almost got alphabetized through private schools), public utilities such as electricity (with a certain degree of competition by the way) and so on.
Some libertarian leaning works in which one can find theoretical and real ways to provide quasi public goods are Public Goods & Market Failures, Robust Political Economy (contains tons of citations of libertarian and other economic literature on that) and Una Revolución Liberal Para España (spanish).
>>58991320
>Before you get all uppity, understand that I, myself, am a libertarian.
>The problem is that none of can figure out HOW MUCH smaller the government oughta be. What SHOULD the government provide for its citizens.
At least we're discussing it as an important issue, rather than what the other fuckwits are doing. By talking about it, we're looking at the system that is government and learning about what flaws it has, the problems it always causes, and the role of adult people in how they own their selves and what it means to actually be responsible.
I've found that 99% of problems in the world in general come from a lack of self control, both with the individual and with the collective.
You can't use government to control the self either. Not in a way that promotes better living, better behavior, and a better result in life.
In fact, government often destroys self-control, as it gives a false sense of security and control so people slack off controlling themselves.
You see this very clearly in the US black population. Fully on the tit of the state, protected and given aid at a cost to others.
The nigs as a people in the US abandoned their attempt to act like "white people". Because government came in and promised them good things.
And we see the results.
>>58974813
If you're demanding they receive 'the benefits' against their will, you can't ethically demand they pay for them.
>>58974138
Yes, taxes can be justifies from a libertarian view point. Even from radical libertarian views.
Libertarians, and almost everybody agree that coercion between individuals in our daily lives is wrong, physically harming others or taking their possessions is a violation of their rights and this makes such things prima facie wrong. The disagreement between libertarians and moste people is that if in fact, such moral judgements apply to institutions such as the State.
The thing is that even with that taxes might be justified. Imagine an imminent threat to humanity that it's solution is a mechanism that exhibits pure public good characteristics, so it would be incredibly difficult to finance it privately. Would taxes be justified in such case? Yes. Sealing someone's property is wrong but there is such a gain that trumps the prima facie wrongness of the rights violations. The threshold of justification is, I think, very very high to justify such rights violations.
For a discussion of such things I would recommend to take a look at the end of this paper (written by Micheael Huemer, a prominent libertarian philosopher): http://philpapers.org/archive/HUEIWR.pdf
