Which is Worse: Taxes or Fiat Money? \ stacker news ~econ

pull down to refresh

Which is Worse: Taxes or Fiat Money?

1221 sats \ 90 comments \ @kepford 27 Oct econ

Taxes are theft.
Fiat is manipulation of the base money in an economy by a few.

If you could snap your fingers and eliminate one forever but no other which would you choose to eliminate?

Fiat - (No money printer)61.5%

Taxes - All Taxes (but not fiat)38.5%

39 votes \ poll ended

view all related items

46 sats \ 4 replies \ @SimpleStacker 14h

I'd argue that from the standpoint of Biblical Christian ethics, fiat is more immoral than taxation.

30 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford OP 11h

100%. It is for sure more clearly condemned. I think you can make a case against what we today call taxes but the case against fiat is easy. Unjust weight and measures is clearly condemned.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 10h

Additionally Jesus over-turning the tables of the money changers was VERY likely an example of people being cheated by this very thing.

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 10h

Silence on something isn't approval by the way. I remind my friends that have a problem with my calling taxation theft. After all, we all would agree that slavery was immoral yet it is never directly condemned by Jesus. But the abolition of it was lead by Christians. In principle it is clearly wrong. Missing the mark.

There are many things condemned directly in the Bible that aren't taken nearly seriously enough. Fiat to me is one of them.

But in principle taxation is immoral. I think it is just hard to accept this if you don't have a framework of how we could abolish it and how society could function under a voluntary system.

I have zero doubt this could be done but a ton of questions about how it would come about and when.

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 9h

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" - Matthew 22:21

The Christian doctrine says pay your taxes. Jesus said to pay em. Yes, Christian ethics does not consider paying state taxes to be immoral, rather, it is a duty. The ancient people were smart enough to not accept fiat currency, they wanted coins of silver and gold! Ancient civilizations had far less trust.

(Not religious myself but wanted to offer another data point to this).

203 sats \ 13 replies \ @optimism 27 Oct

That one was easy: taxes. They generally don't let you opt-out of these whereas opting out of fiat is the act of spending it.

102 sats \ 11 replies \ @kepford OP 27 Oct

And yet... one has opposition and the other is invisible.

Virtually no one even understands fiat.

Most people have a much better understanding of taxes.

78 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 27 Oct

Fair, but I think that that is the best reason to choose taxes.

Remove fiat you shall still be coerced no matter how much you learn about taxes
Remove taxes, all you need to do is learn to get rid of that fiat asap.

111 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford OP 27 Oct

This is why I asked the question. Good point. I still disagree but it gets us thinking doesn't it?

My thought is that if you eliminate fiat its dead forever because of bitcoin. And fiat is MUCH harder to fight than taxes.

Taxes are not invisible and if you take away the fiat tool to fund spending and special interests you take away a LOT of power from the state and its cronies. Then you have a situation where taxes will become more pressured as the source of funding things. People are far more likely to push back on that vs. the complex and largely invisible fiat system.

I will add though that one of the worst things about Democracy is how it clouds our thinking about taxes. Under a king people have no illusion what is happening. The King is levying taxes to do what he wants. Much easier to see that it is a forcible taking. Theft.

But we are propagandized to believe that WE are the government in a democracy(or whatever you think the US is). We the people and all that. How can the people steal from themselves? Unless you kill democracy and instead have a voluntary free society its gonna be hard to get rid of taxes.

This is why I don't think this question is an easy one.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 27 Oct

And another thing people have a hard time thinking through is that eliminating taxes doesn't mean you don't pay for services the state is now providing. Its just not gonna be theft.

Its not theft when I voluntarily pay for someone to take away my garbage. That is a fee for service.

Those of us who have studied some econ probably could agree that some things the government provides would be more expensive under a free system. But most if not all would be better and we'd have choice instead of fear of imprisonment.

52 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 27 Oct

If you live in the US, many of the things the govt provides would be more expensive. Simply because your money printing is absorbed by foreigners. If you live outside the US, very much less so.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 27 Oct

deleted by author

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 20h

This is the interesting interpretation here... taxes are objectively worse than broken fiat, but relative to the population's expectations and knowledge, fiat is the bigger culprit

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Bell_curve 27 Oct

Maybe the 2 are related?

Federal Reserve was created in 1913. Income Tax amendment passed in 1913.

11 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford OP 28 Oct

For sure they are. But taxes weren't invented in the US nor was fiat.

I was meaning on earth too. Not the US alone.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 28 Oct

When did fiat start in USA?

1776? 1789? 1865? 1877? 1913? 1933? 1971?

Even during the gold standard, banks would issue notes for gold deposits but they were fractional.

A fiat system can work better without a central bank and without fractional reserve banking.

Currencies collapse because governments spend and waste tax dollars.

Fiat is imperfect like most things but taxation is worse

11 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 17h

Notes and free banking are not fiat. I'm referring to central bank era. The FED era. Money by decree where supply is controlled as it is today. Where currency is tied to nothing. Untethered.

Of course you can make good arguments for tax being worse. Its why I posed the question. Looking at the Cantillon Effect coupled with the inflation of money supply admitted by the FED should open the eyes of people. It doesn't. Its hard to see the unseen.

Currencies collapse because governments spend and waste tax dollars.

How do governments spend so much money? Its not just taxes. Its the money printer as well. Removing this ability (bitcoin could do this) will force the state to do the harder thing. Increase taxes which leads to more conflict with the taxed. Which might be what we need to wake more people up.

In an ideal world you'd get rid of both. Today the state can print to fund their adventures. They don't have to raise tax as they did when governments of the world were on gold standards.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 9h

Inflation is a hidden tax

All government spending is funded via explicit taxation, borrowing and inflation. Of course borrowing is also paid for via taxation. The real tax is what government spends. Ultimately the taxpayer has to pay for it, all of it.

Since the Fed was created in 1913, price stability has decreased and bank closures have increased. They can't fulfill their mandate or raison d'etre

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 28 Oct

Tru

80 sats \ 7 replies \ @fiatbad 27 Oct

I can't believe this poll is so close.

Fiat is the obvious answer.

I'm shocked. I'm disappointed.

Now I understand why more Bitcoiners aren't fighting to end fiat. They haven't read the must-read book list, apparently. They simply haven't done their homework, I guess.

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @denlillaapan 28 Oct

I feel exactly the same way from the other side. oooobviously taxes are a much worse problem than fiat

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @fiatbad 21h

You can probably teach me something then. I'd love to chat 1-on-1 for a friendly debate.

However, if you haven't read the following books, then I may not be able to get my point of view across very well, and it could be an unproductive debate.

The Creature from Jekyll Island
They Own It All (Including You)!: By Means of Toxic Currency
Both of Alex Gladstein's books
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (which I haven't finished yet)
War is a Racket

Those are the books explaining how evil and nefarious fiat is. Then there are the books explaining how bad fiat is for society, even if you don't believe the "evil" of it. Books like:

The Price of Tomorrow
Broken Money
The Sovereign Individual

And many more.

Taxes can be nefarious, but also make sense if done correctly. They aren't inherently evil, like fiat is. They are a tool which CAN be evil, but aren't on their own. Fiat is evil right out of the gate. Taxes typically provide citizens with goods/services... fiat provides Cantillionaires with extraordinary luxury while decreasing the wealth of the middle class.

I'm sure there are parts I'm missing, and books I haven't read. Maybe you can name some for me to read to learn about the other side of this.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @denlillaapan 20h

Taxes can be nefarious, but also make sense if done correctly. They aren't inherently evil, like fiat is. They are a tool which CAN be evil, but aren't on their own. Fiat is evil right out of the gate. Taxes typically provide citizens with goods/services... fiat provides Cantillionaires with extraordinary luxury while decreasing the wealth of the middle class.

also: I was Lyn's editor for Broken Money, so it's HILARIOUS for you to throw that in my face.

33 sats \ 3 replies \ @fiatbad 20h

I thought I made it clear that I want to learn your perspective. There are probably parts of this that I don't understand. I'm going to offer my perspective, for the sake of conversation. But I was clear that I'm trying to be humble in my position, because there's a lot I don't know.

I know there are a lot of classically trained economists in this territory who can teach me.

So, I wasn't "throwing anything in your face", or trying to be condescending. I'm genuinely trying to learn, and explaining where my current understanding lies, and the books that have taught me.

It's possible I've spent too long reading about how fiat works, and I have a blindspot on the taxes side. That was the point of wanting to debate. I asked you for book recommendations. I want to learn, not be rude, or have others be rude at me.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @itsrealfake 19h

I thought your comment was totally reasonable and humble. too bad you didn't get a polite or constructive response.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 16h

yahyah, w/e. This is SN, we're snarky here

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 16h

straight up, your initial comment can just replace "tax" and "fiat" and still work, which would indicate that there's something off.

More importantly, taxes are MAGNITUDES larger in contemporary Western soc than the extractive benefit from fiat currencies. E.g., my Twitter interaction w Larry Lepard:

I also don't know what part of the world you live where taxes neatly/accurately/appropriately "provide citizens with goods and services." And to the extent they do, your entire thesis is based on a disingenuous comparison... what, fiat money doesn't provide the services of a monetary system (acceptably well)?

13 sats \ 20 replies \ @Undisciplined 27 Oct

Taxes are the "full faith and credit" part of fiat and I think it dies pretty quickly without them.

59 sats \ 9 replies \ @kepford OP 27 Oct

Fiat is not the dollar.

The dollar was once pegged to gold.

I didn't say the dollar. I said Fiat.

Guess I should have been more clear. Common confusion.

53 sats \ 5 replies \ @kepford OP 27 Oct

Additionally, you could eliminate the FED and NOT eliminate the Treasury. Coining money is not fiat.

See most people have no clue about how the dollar works. I'd say most bitcoiners don't. And I'm not an expert in the slightest. But the many hours I've spend learning about the history of the US money system and economy I know that we once had a non-fiat system here.

Banks issued notes. Dollars are just notes issued by the treasury and were backed by gold. Of course there is trust involved but its entirely different from fiat.

Today since bitcoin exists and doesn't require trust (other than in the protocol / network) we could and likely would eliminate the dollar.

42 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 28 Oct

The bank notes were not totally backed by gold.

Fractional reserve banking existed during the gold standard too

62 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 28 Oct

Good point. I think there were periods with high reserve rates, though

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 28 Oct

True but I am sure that number varied between banks and seasons etc

18 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 27 Oct

Coining money wouldn't be fiat if the denominations matched the value of materials used.

Pennies and nickels are worth more than their face values, but dimes and quarters much less. Dimes and quarters are fiat because their value comes from government decree.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 27 Oct

Sure. But again, you are describing fiat and mixing that with the coinage. It would be fiat if the coins were traded for arbitrary set amounts. Unless they were treated like paper notes. IE, backed by a physical asset. After all, even paper has a value. Its just very small.

54 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 27 Oct

I get you, but I think fiat currencies would fail much faster without taxing authority behind them.

Part of the demand for fiat is that people have to pay their taxes in it and a lot of the willingness to buy the bonds that are part of creating more fiat is knowing theft can be used to guarantee the nominal yield.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 28 Oct

The root of the problem is government spending which can only be minimized by minimizing taxation of all kinds

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 27 Oct

Maybe. I can see that being possible.

0 sats \ 9 replies \ @denlillaapan 20h

33 sats \ 8 replies \ @Undisciplined 17h

Where has fiat worked without taxes?

42 sats \ 4 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 16h

That brings me to my comment on this post.

If you get rid of the TAXES, they’ll have to print even more FIAT! Hahaha.

#1267539

63 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 16h

Taxes are in the open. Fiat is hidden. This is the base of my case for killing fiat being more important.

The best argument against this is that bitcoin will do this over time anyway...

Actually, the biggest threat to bitcoin is a return to sound money...

48 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 14h

To me, it's much more clear that taxes are immoral. They're just theft.

Printing up pieces of paper that say "10 Schmurples", or whatever, isn't immoral in and of itself. We'd have to connect other aspects, like requiring people to accept the fiat in trade at some particular exchange rate.

33 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 14h

They wouldn't have to. My preference would be they just go away, which is an option.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 14h

ahahah! You know damn well that's not gonna happen!

42 sats \ 1 reply \ @denlillaapan 16h

taxes have existed since sovereigns have; fiat is new and shallow.

You can very well have both (or either), and comparatively, taxes are worse.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 14h

I'm not sure what your disagreement is, then

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 17h

Indeed. Good question.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @nkmg1c_ventures 27 Oct

The tax base pales in comparison to the amount of money printed just to keep everything chugging along

171 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 27 Oct

Hard to come up with a decision framework because both are emergent and closely related, fiat is a type of tax.

Arguably fiat distorts the economy more in practice, but not inherently.

I'd also argue fiat is already gone in the material sense, the party is over we're just cleaning up the mess and the economy is nursing a hangover.

Taxes are whackamole, not sure anyone would prefer reversion to the inevitable alternative of serfdom/feudalism. History has proven that scarcity forces trade-offs and we get the trade-offs we deserve.

28 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 27 Oct

It is a hard decision and I left it pretty open ended.

I could have been more clear about meaning fiat and not "the dollar" which doesn't have to be fiat and wasn't originally (to my knowledge).

I mostly think that taxes are easier to fight than fiat. But if you killed fiat bitcoin would mean it would be forever dead. But really, if I think about that then I start to think its just a matter of time till fiat is dead anyway. So maybe taxes would be a better choice.

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 27 Oct

Yea I don't think the dollar when people say fiat. I immediately go back to diluting gold coins with other metals... been a problem since at least Roman times... likely longer.

I'd disagree and say fiat is much easier to circumvent, you don't have to hold it, you can always adopt a different unit for your own personal balance sheet/earnings statement. People with a clue have done this with gold and lands throughout history, regardless of the prevailing currency. The only tool necessary to circumvent it is knowledge, which between the speed of information today and Bitcoin having less negative trade-offs than gold is why fiat is party is already over in my view.

I think it's incumbent to say if you'd get rid of something you propose an alternative and can defend that alternative as workable. I like to think I'm fairly creative and well-studied in history, but I still couldn't articulate anything other than perhaps post-scarcity that makes better trade-offs than a minimalist tax regime.

58 sats \ 1 reply \ @TNStacker 27 Oct

Same thing

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 27 Oct

I like it. But I accounted for that in the choices.

78 sats \ 1 reply \ @nichro 27 Oct

Fiat is worse. Let them be forced to tax people 99% to find their promises and wars and let's see how apologetic the sheeple remain

12 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 27 Oct

Indeed, this is a thought I've had. Force the state to be more open about what they are about.

58 sats \ 1 reply \ @m0wer 27 Oct

I chose fiat not thinking about myself but about the whole world.

Most people hate taxes already and try to avoid them. But I also think most people won't ever realize about the fiat scam on their own.

So overall I think fiat is way more harmful than taxes in our world today.

24 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 27 Oct

I agree. Worldwide, the world mostly is harmed more by this than we in the US.

0 sats \ 10 replies \ @fourrules 21h

Without fiat taxes are voluntary. I have no problem with voluntary taxes.

0 sats \ 9 replies \ @denlillaapan 20h

voluntary taxes.

try those two words together again.

9 sats \ 7 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 20h

We could call voluntary taxes, donations!

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @fourrules 19h

Sure but the public sphere needs funding either way. We're not going back to the Roman empire where the fire brigade was a monopoly controlled by one senator (Crassus I believe) who becomes the richest man in Rome by providing "a service" that should be a part of civil society.

In the Greek world a fire brigade was called a "church", or the root of that word in Greek, and local groups pooled resources. States will need to be held together by something you can call voluntary taxes. They're not really going to be voluntary because there will be social consequences enforced by society on anyone who thinks a private fire brigade (who are really arsonists with fire trucks) is a good idea.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @denlillaapan 17h

the public sphere needs funding either way.

no it doesn't -- go away.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @fourrules 16h

Go have a cry and come back when you've recovered from the reality check

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 17h

WONDERFUL! I love charity

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford OP 15h

There is no such thing as voluntary taxes. Its either a donation or a price of services/goods. Taxes are more akin to what the mob does. Theft, or extortion. If you remove the threat of force it is no longer a tax.

When people refuse to admit what taxes actually are they get all tangled up in logic. You can make arguments for taxes but still admit they are theft. After all... people do pay off the mob because they know it is better than the alternative... but they aren't under any illusions about what is happening.

The God Father movies are under-rated in regards to anarchist thought.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @fourrules 15h

I agree in principle, but obviously taxes aren't going away and there are degrees of consent that matters.

Pure libertarianism is utopian, it's just not going to happen. People who need stuff to live will always use force to take it from you. You can cry about it and shout moral indignations, but the truth is that they are not stopped because most people feel that taxes are morally justified, and they consent to them. The degree to which a population consents to a tax, versus being coerced by a coordinated and powerful minority who exploits them, is the degree of "voluntarism" that I'm describing.

The reality is that the vast majority of people want to live in a world where the government taxes the population equitably and transparently to pay for stuff like fire brigades and water treatment facilities, however utopian it is to believe that the right to tax is then limited to basic public services & utilities.

In other words, getting rid of fiat sets a more reasonable limit on governments capacity to tax.

If I need bread to live you can call me a thief but if you try to stop me I will kill you. Maybe I'll say "yeah, so what?" What's your point, that society must be morally pure and cleansed of all indignity and injustice?

You think you're being clever but it's really just delusional solipsism and sociopathy.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 15h

Some people say playing the lottery is a kind of ‘voluntary tax’ (a tax on people who are bad at math), because it’s basically a voluntary contribution that makes the government richer. ahahah

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @fourrules 20h

Voluntary taxes

23 sats \ 0 replies \ @BeeRye 27 Oct

taxes

taxes,taxes,taxes

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @rootmachine 17h

even though FIAT is not a great option, the correct choice between FIAT and TAXES, is taxes. Why? For me is simple: taxes are only for a few. money (be it fiat or BTC or gold) is for everyone. Those who live with taxes develop slower and so on. While money, is something you need for a better and more fair trade in whatever circumstances. History shows this pretty straight forward if you look at Europe. This is just my quick thought.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford OP 17h

Cantillon Effect. Fiat benefits the well connected. It doesn't really hurt them. I (and many bitcoiners) would argue that many of the problems we have in society can be tied to fiat. Taxes are evil but there have been times of great prosperity with low taxes and sound money. Or at least more sound than we have in modernity.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @rootmachine 17h

I know what you mean, but I will stay by my option in this scenario. As an European, I can tell you that the prosperity you are talking about with low taxes and sound money was only for one part, not for all involved parties. I will always say: there must be something rational in all options. We have nukes and not using them because we cannot control the outcome. Right now we are not controlling the outcome for both taxes and fiat. Same goes by when talking about fiat, taxes, healthcare, education and so on. So, smart thing would be both to wipe out fiat & taxes, but at this moment in time, people are way to used to using a "form of money" for "trades" that fiat will super quick be replaced. Looking at this scenario, we are left with wiping out taxes. And, in fact, if you look at how the politics are shifting, you will see that many want this to happen (extreme left wingers especially in Europe).
I do feel that we are living strange and unpredictable times.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 17h

Yeah, this is messy and complex but I think fiat is the most often overlooked factor in modern democracies. Capitalism gets the blame for every evil or taxes/gov spending. Central banks printing money is almost never discussed.

You will only eliminate "inequality" by making everyone live in complete poverty. And even then you will still have hierarchy. Equality is a recipe for disaster. I'm a free market maxi. You will still have evil. It doesn't solve that but neither does the state. It simply centralizes power and corruption.

We do live in interesting times and understanding the base issues helps to know which direction we should lean. At least that is my view. We for sure don't need less freedom, we need more and free-market money would be amazing. Oh wait, we have it. Bitcoin!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @rootmachine 17h

Yeah, we have Bitcoin. And I am hoping for it to be adopted widely in the future, even though the majority of people holding Bitcoin will be those who control most of FIAT at this right moment. But we keep stacking and hoping.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 19h

If you get rid of the TAXES, they’ll have to print even more FIAT! Hahaha.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @flat24 28 Oct

I think the concept of taxes wouldn't be wrong, as long as they're used properly, and that the funds are used wisely and to the benefit of those who contribute them. But fiat money is the biggest theft in history, and taxes in times of fiat money, where the government has the ability to create all the money necessary to run a nation, are an even greater aberration. That is, they print money without a limit, degrading citizens' purchasing power, and at the same time, they want to take another part of the loot from us through taxes.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 28 Oct

So if I point a gun to your head tale your money but use it to help someone else... that's cool?

Its theft. It might be used better or worse. Doesn't change the exchange. Make it voluntary or allow people to opt in/opt

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SwapMarket 28 Oct

Fiat's frictionless monetary inflation is a scam to force "investing" the melting ice cubes (running in a ferret wheel to stay in place) and to collect taxes (at an increasing rate!) on such meaningless "economic activity". They feed each other, but fiat is in the driver's seat.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 27 Oct

the risks associated with fiat is related to fractional reserve banking imo

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 27 Oct

Given the two choices I pick fiat as being the better choice. At least it's gameable.

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 27 Oct

Fiat is worse by far. Taxation, or maintenance of the commons, becomes inevitable in sufficiently advanced social system systems. It is unavoidable, the argument is for the specifics of what is taxed, how it is taxed, etc.

Even a hypothetical 10 person Bitcoin citadel is going to need everyone to contribute in some way, that is tax. 10 people will argue over the specifics.

But Fiat:

Humanity thrived for thousands of years under regimes of taxation, to the the ruler, the King, the State. It is sound money, or lack there of, that is causing such social issues in our society today. Fiat, or unbound money, leads to lack of discipline.

It was the unbinding of physical quantities (like gold in storage), from monetary supply that lead to such dramatic devaluations per unit of account. Inflation eats away at peoples savings and purchasing power, it acts as a invisible tax to all economic participants.

If we could eliminate tax entirely, every sufficiently advanced social system would fail. Bad. If we could eliminate fiat (by going back to sound money, where the politician cannot change the monetary supply by fiat), we may trend towards utopia.

10 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford OP 27 Oct

If we could eliminate tax entirely, every sufficiently advanced social system would fail. Bad

Nah, most depend on private free markets to make them work. If you killed tax every needed service would have a massive incentive to be met by the market. The ones that are just government scams would die though. But if people wanted them, they could voluntarily pool their resources to meet the needs. Pretty much every government program can or has been done non-violently accomplished. Even security. The transition could be messy but probably not as bad as we think.

33 sats \ 2 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 27 Oct

It depends how we define taxation.

The free market providing services, even on a voluntary basis, becomes de facto involuntary tax due to social pressure or necessity. Its just ongoing payment for something. That the monetary flow goes: Me -> Service Provider vs Me-> Gov tax -> Service Provider , may have efficiency gains, but its not so simple.

I consider tax to be maintenance of a service or common property. In the case of Land, that's paying for the state guns to defend it, you cant remove it without removing the defense. Someone is getting paid for the risk.

Could we get better value for our monetary spend to private providers vs Gov distribution to private providers from Taxation? Maybe, but i am also not convinced a private market would always come out cheaper. There are efficiencies and negotiation at scale by governments too.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @beyond_turbulence 15h

The Shipyard Paradox (or: Why Every Dock Charges a Fee)

It depends on what one calls celebration. Whether a sailor pays the harbor master directly or through a fleet’s collective dues, the tide still demands tribute. The difference is only in the paperwork.

Call it free exchange or levy by necessity, but the current always flows the same way unless turbulence reverses the flow from large to small instead of small to large: from the deckhand to the dockkeeper.

The question isn’t whether the fee exists—it’s who maintains the lighthouse, and who’s paid to fire the cannons.

Private shipyards might promise lower tolls, but not all captains bargain better than kings or said monarch. Sometimes, scale itself is the only seaworthy negotiation, a form of grief or power and/or responsibility …

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 9h

An LLM rephrasing of my comment? I think it still captures the core ideas, and seem to be a universal truth, or at least a human truth.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 27 Oct

Fiat is worst IMO though

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @guerratotal 27 Oct

Taxes, simply put, if you have to pay to maintain something that was never yours... as simple as that, if you stop paying taxes on a piece of land you would lose it, if you stop paying your car you would lose it, your house, etc. Taxes are things of the devil, something satanic.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 27 Oct

What about things that are shared possessions, common possessions. Corporal, physical 'ownership' is just one type.

There is maintenance costs in terms of energy, compute and storage to maintain something even digitally owned by someone.

Running a node is supplying to the commons, and the resource costs are a form of implicit taxation on the participants.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @guerratotal 20h

The crucial difference is who defines and controls that “contribution.” Voluntary cooperation will never be a “tax.”

When I talk about taxes as something satanic, I mean a coercive system where a central authority takes what's yours by force, under threat and punishment, even if you never asked for its “services.” That's not cooperation. That's institutionalized violence.

Commons can exist perfectly well without coercion. Common property can be managed by free agreements, private pacts, nodes, local communities.

The energy, storage, or maintenance costs you mention are voluntarily borne by those who participate. No one points a gun at you to make you run a node.

Taxes don't work that way. They're not optional. You can't say "I don't want to" without losing freedom or property.