Tax Fraud

Quote: CynthiaNeun

Yes, Sir, I know Irwin Schiff and I love him very much. Thank you for your interest.

Irwin Schiff is a hero and a political prisoner, and his son Peter is brilliant. Say what you will about the income tax, Irwin clearly believed the things he taught people and was not a scam artist by anyone's definition.

What a coincidence. I am reading about tax fraud today as well.

Irwin Schiff is a clown. It is one thing to keep your frivolous tax arguments to yourself, but to perpetrate them to the public and spread your scam is heinous and he deserves every day he got in prison.

He didn't believe what he said. If he did, he was nuts. His laywer even had to raise the insanity defense because no jury would swallow that he had a good faith belief that Americans are not required to pay income tax. (One of the elements required to prove a 7201/7203 tax evasion/willful failure to file charge is willfulness. The U.S. Supreme Court said in Cheek vs. U.S. that if the defendant can show a good faith, reasonable belief that they did not have to pay taxes, the willfulness element of the charge is not met. As far as I know, not one person has been able to convince a jury of that).

Quote: teddys

What a coincidence. I am reading about tax fraud today as well.

Irwin Schiff is a clown. It is one thing to keep your frivolous tax arguments to yourself, but to perpetrate them to the public and spread your scam is heinous and he deserves every day he got in prison.

He didn't believe what he said. If he did, he was nuts. His laywer even had to raise the insanity defense because no jury would swallow that he had a good faith belief that Americans are not required to pay income tax. (One of the elements required to prove a 7201/7203 tax evasion/willful failure to file charge is willfulness. The U.S. Supreme Court said in Cheek vs. U.S. that if the defendant can show a good faith, reasonable belief that they did not have to pay taxes, the willfulness element of the charge is not met. As far as I know, not one person has been able to convince a jury of that).

Couple of things here. Just because the government calls arguments against taxation 'frivolous' does not mean that they are morally frivolous. For example, The Constitution claims that you cannot be compelled to testafy against yourself, and a strong argument can be made that being forced to fill out a 1040 is most certainly testafying against yourself (Especially if you cannot afford the tax). The government calls this argument frivolous.

"He didn't believe what he said. If he did, he was nuts." How many of Schiff's videos or books can you name without using google? How many of his videos have you watched or seminars did you attend? What city was his office in (ok this one is easy, this is a Las Vegas forum!). His son Peter owns EuroPacific Capital and hosts a daily radio show where he occassionally will discuss Irwin, how much of this have you heard? There are a lot of con men and scam artists out there but Schiff is not one of them, and if you completely unfamiliar with his material then, AT BEST, you are being unfair.

As far as the arguments that his lawyers made, my understanding is that the judge in the case did not allow Schiff to make the argument that you described so his lawyers convinced him to go along with the insanity defense to try to keep him out of a government cage, but alas.

The truth is that Schiff had way too much faith in government. He believed that there was a court in this country that would give him a fair shake. There is no way any judge in this country would throw out the income tax under any circumstances at this point. Maybe in the first year or two after it passed, but certainly not now.

Welcome to the forum Cynthia. I see that you were involved with Freedom Books. You are a hero.

I would LOVE to discuss tax fraud with you here (seriously), but this isn't really the correct thread. Wizard or JB, could you split off a thread about tax fraud?

His arguments are legally AND morally frivolous. There is nothing moral or upstanding about it--he is saying that a law that applies to everyone else in the country does not apply to him. For example, It is patently illegal to embezzle money and engage in securities fraud. To say that that law doesn't apply to me is not a moral argument, it is a frivolous one. To say that the tax code does not apply to me is not a moral argument, it is a frivolous one.

The Fifth Amendment says you cannot be forced to be a witness against yourself. The Court has interpreted this as meaning you cannot be forced to answer a question that will be used against you in later prosecution. This applies to questions asked by cops, NOT a 1040. You are required to declare all income, even that illegally gained. (That's how they got Al Capone).

I don't need to read Shiff's materials to know he is a charlatan. That applies to all the criminals who came before and after him, and all associated with him. These people are stealing from the American public and encouraging others to do so. They deserve the harshest penalties our justice system can give out.

Don't have time to fully respond tonight but I will tomorrow. You have already framed the debate as 'tax fraud' which means that I have to defend 'fraud'. I believe fraud is immoral. I have to go but will respond tomorrow or perhaps tonight.

A good faith belief that one does not need to pay income taxes needs to be based on the same construction of the law that the courts used in deciding that it is valid. If the government says everyone has to pay taxes on salaries, and you decide "the Constitution says I don't have to pay taxes", then you'll lose as a result of your construction being denied in favor of the government's. One does not simply get to recharacterize what the law means and claim that is being done in good faith.

A good faith argument can prevail if the petitioner believes the law, construed equivalently by both parties, is simply being misapplied. In my own consulting practice, I have had certain state tax assessments withdrawn by the issuing state as a result of arguing that the law (in this case, related to economic nexus) was misapplied. Saved me several thousand dollars and the hassle of filing another return.

But starting from the premise that "taxation is immoral" is doomed to fail. So is starting from the premise that "the rest of society has deemed that the government has the right to tax their individual earnings, but I disagree; therefore I don't owe any income taxes." The law is what it is; if you don't like it, change it. But don't pretend that breaking it isn't breaking it because you're above it somehow.

Quote: teddys

His arguments are legally AND morally frivolous. There is nothing moral or upstanding about it--he is saying that a law that applies to everyone else in the country does not apply to him. For example, It is patently illegal to embezzle money and engage in securities fraud. To say that that law doesn't apply to me is not a moral argument, it is a frivolous one. To say that the tax code does not apply to me is not a moral argument, it is a frivolous one.

A couple of things Ted (and ME). First of all, I completely aknowledge that my opinion is a radical one. It took me several months of study to accept that radical libertarianism as espoused by such great men as Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Tom Woods, and Stephan Molyneux is the most moral philosophy. I was a Rush Limbaugh Republican when I studied political philosophy as an undergraduate at a fine liberal arts institution full of the same socialists that populate most colleges and neoconservatives and I have heard many many arguments as to why we need a government or how government is good. I will keep an open mind to your arguments, especially if you come up with some arguments I have not heard before dozens of times. I ask that you keep an open mind (and I will try to do the same) and try to entertain some radical and very counterintuitive ideas. I will try my best to be intellectually honest, I ask that you do the same. I just got done filling a 1040 myself as accurately as possible so I do pay the income tax despite the fact that we are not morally obligated to do so.

Finally, Teddys, your arguments so far have relied on case law. I appreciate the fact that judicial opinons create law, however we ought not be suprised that a bureaucrat in a black dress who is paid by the state finds in favor of...the state. Let's debate the morality of taxation, not the legislation or case law. We can think for ourselves. For example above I said one could reasonably argue that being forced to fill out a 1040 amounted to being forced to testify against one's self. You responded that the courts do not see it that way and then went on to outline the government's rules. I want to know WHY filling out a 1040 is not testafying against yourself.


I dont believe you are familiar with Schiff's arguments, you admit in the post that you are unfamiliar with his materials. At best you have seconhand knowledge of his positions and arguments likely from a government source. Do you think it is fair to judge Mr. Schiff's arguments without even pretending to be familiar with them?

BTW Schiff did not believe that everyone else owed income tax but him as you claim, he believed that based on the way the law and regulations are written, the income tax is voluntary for individuals (not corporations). He encouraged everyone to PayNoIncomeTax.com I will rewatch some of his stuff and be prepared to discuss Mr. Schiff's position.

btw check out this video
here.

This is Peter discussing his Dad. Peter Schiff is the CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, hosts a daily radio show which is heard on a few dozen affiliates each day, and got 23% of the Republican vote for senate in the 2010 primary (behind Linda McMahon of the WWE). He is no slouch.

Quote: bigfoot66

For example above I said one could reasonably argue that being forced to fill out a 1040 amounted to being forced to testify against one's self. You responded that the courts do not see it that way and then went on to outline the government's rules. I want to know WHY filling out a 1040 is not testafying against yourself.

Fifth amendment prohibits being forced to testify against oneself in a criminal case. Filing 1040 is not such testimony, thus, no, you cannot reasonably argue that.
Providing truthful information on 1040 will not result in a criminal prosecution thus fifth amendment does not apply.

Everyone knows that dollars are not legitimate currency and cannot be used to pay taxes; they are not redeemable in specie. Since there is no way to pay taxes, they cannot be paid.

/sarcasm

I respect your views and, without trying to be patronizing, thank you for complying with the law by paying taxes. The tax gap is a major problem in this country and has a lot to do with our federal deficit. If everyone paid the correct amount of tax, we'd run at a surplus.

That said, you may disagree with tax policy, but you can't dispute the system of taxation that has been put in place. It is a legitimately passed law and constitutional amendment. The way the Supreme Court interprets the law is the law. If you don't like it, use the political process to get tax laws changed and elect a president who will change the composition of the Court in your favor. That may sound disingenuous, but that is the way it is supposed to work.

Making ridiculous arguments such as the IRS is not valid, is collecting taxes illegally, or some Fifth Amendment thing does nothing to help your cause. For a truly radical position, why not just not pay taxes at all in open rebellion against the government?

Quote: bigfoot66

I will try my best to be intellectually honest, I ask that you do the same. I just got done filling a 1040 myself as accurately as possible so I do pay the income tax despite the fact that we are not morally obligated to do so.

Morality has nothing to do with taxation. Taxation is a legal concept, a way of funding a government and the obligations it undertakes. There are other ways; we've chosen as a society not to use them and to tax ourselves instead. Being intellectually honest requires not conflating legality with morality. There is nothing either moral or immoral about driving or smoking laws either, but nobody's making any arguments that speeding or smoking are moral goods. Why is taxation different?

What part of the following history do you find fault with:
1) The legislative representatives in government were duly elected by the people;
2) Those representatives, acting as agents of the people, promulgated the laws for our taxation system and the government offices that execute it;
3) The government offices (e.g. IRS) have fairly carried out the laws passed by Congress regarding assessment and collection of taxes, and that includes the 1040 form.

I don't think there's been a breakdown in the process. Do you? If not, how can you argue that the laws don't apply to you or others, when they were created using the same principles of representative democracy that we use for everything else? That process is simply a loose proxy for popular acclaim: if everyone agrees that the law should be Do X, and you come into town the next day and don't Do X, you're breaking the law. What do you mean I can't talk on my cell phone while I drive across your state? What do you mean I can't smoke in your hotel lobby? Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it; intimate knowledge of the law is even less so. By willfully breaking the law, you are pooh-poohing the hard-won political system that so many Americans spend their lives participating in, voting in, and, in some cases, fighting and dying for.

From the rest of your post, it sounds like you have some overarching political philosophy that involves little to no government (perhaps a little-L libertarian bent). I don't have time to get into a big philosophical discussion, but I don't think you'll find a nation's worth of people who want to live in a Hobbesian State of Nature. You're simply going to have to accept that those who hold a wholly anti-government philosophy are an insignificant proportion of the citizenry. That battle has been waged and lost.

Quote: MathExtremist

Morality has nothing to do with taxation.

I can't think of a sadder statement than that one.

Isn't it ironic that money used to arrest, try, and now jail Mr. Schiff comes from the very thing he claims is immoral?

That must irk him.

Quote: Nareed

I can't think of a sadder statement than that one.

Why?

Quote: MathExtremist

From the rest of your post, it sounds like you have some overarching political philosophy that involves little to no government (perhaps a little-L libertarian bent). I don't have time to get into a big philosophical discussion, but I don't think you'll find a nation's worth of people who want to live in a Hobbesian State of Nature. You're simply going to have to accept that those who hold a wholly anti-government philosophy are an insignificant proportion of the citizenry. That battle has been waged and lost.

All I ask is that you keep an open mind to what I freely admit is a radical political philosophy. When I first heard the philosophy of liberty I was actually angry at the guy espousing it! What a rube, what an idiot! It took me a lot of study to come to believe it, so I do not anticipate changing any minds overnight. I am very interested in having this conversation. Keep in mind that I interact with conservatives and liberals quite regularly but I suspect I may be the first voluntaryist who you have spoken to...

I propose that it is always wrong for one man to initiate force or fraud on another man or his property. This is the highest moral principal and applies universally.
Is this something that we can agree on?

The common criminal points a gun at his victim and says "Your wallet or your life". Is what the criminal does ever morally justified? What if they are using the money to build a highway, or pay for cancer treatment for Grandma? How about to feed a starving child? What if the person holding the gun calls himself a policeman or a tax collector?

The IRS agent uses the threat of violence as the common criminal, and says to its victims, "Your money or your freedom."

You claim that taxation is not a moral question. Does that mean it is OK for people to steal from each other, or do bureaucrats have an entitlement to take people's money under threat of violence in such a way that it does not constitute force?

I address these questions at ME, but he says in his post that he may not have time to answer, which is fine. I welcome all challenges to my assertion that, from a moral standpoint, IRS agents are no different than common criminals.

Without taxation, please explain how you propose to protect your private property, remove your garbage, fund your highways,
Protect your air, protect your water, protect your food, educate your children, defend your country from attack,...
Oh I know, the volunteers will do it.
How can you expect to be taken seriously?

Quote: MathExtremist

Why?

Because all important interactions among people are based on morality.

Taxes assume that governments can compel payment for their services. This is a complex moral question to begin with, even assuming you've settled the moral question of what a government ought to do. It's sad to see the matter treated as a purely practical matter, because then you reduce an important moral matter to an axiom.

Quote: WongBo

Without taxation, please explain how you propose to protect your private property, remove your garbage, fund your highways,
Protect your air, protect your water, protect your food, educate your children, defend your country from attack,...
Oh I know, the volunteers will do it.
How can you expect to be taken seriously?

No I do not believe that it will be done voluntarily. People are greedy and if you want them to work for you they often will in exchange for money. Respectfully, this is a very weak objection to my argument. Are you so much of a slob that you would not be will not pay a few bucks a month for a private garbage removal service? You don't love your children enough to send them to school unless the government pays for it?

Quote: bigfoot66

I propose that it is always wrong for one man to initiate force or fraud on another man or his property. This is the highest moral principal and applies universally.
Is this something that we can agree on?

No. Restriction of liberty (by law and executed, if necessary, by force) is part and parcel of the social contract. We agree to restrict our liberties to live in a more harmonious society than one with no restriction on liberty. We delegate the promulgation and execution of those laws to the government.

What is your alternative to government by rule of law backed by threat of force?

For the record, essentially every good and service currently provided by government has been provided voluntarily at some point in human history so it can be done again.

Quote: bigfoot66

The common criminal points a gun at his victim and says "Your wallet or your life". Is what the criminal does ever morally justified? What if they are using the money to build a highway, or pay for cancer treatment for Grandma? How about to feed a starving child? What if the person holding the gun calls himself a policeman or a tax collector?

The IRS agent uses the threat of violence as the common criminal, and says to its victims, "Your money or your freedom."

You claim that taxation is not a moral question. Does that mean it is OK for people to steal from each other, or do bureaucrats have an entitlement to take people's money under threat of violence in such a way that it does not constitute force?

Still no takers on this one...

That's a strawman. Nobody agrees to be mugged. We did agreed, through the legislative process, to be taxed. If I agree to pay you for a hamburger, a carpet cleaning, or a fire department and then I don't, I'm the one in the wrong.

Quote: bigfoot66

No I do not believe that it will be done voluntarily. People are greedy and if you want them to work for you they often will in exchange for money. Respectfully, this is a very weak objection to my argument. Are you so much of a slob that you would not be will not pay a few bucks a month for a private garbage removal service? You don't love your children enough to send them to school unless the government pays for it?

not everybody has the luxury of affording to privately fund every aspect of their life. Yeah I cannot afford private school because I don't love my children. You are about the level of a troll. I am blocking you. Grow up.

Quote: MathExtremist

That's a strawman. Nobody agrees to be mugged. We did agreed, through the legislative process, to be taxed. If I agree to pay you for a hamburger, a carpet cleaning, or a fire department and then I don't, I'm the one in the wrong.

It really isn't, it is totally the crux of the issue. I play absolutely no part in the legislative process. When and how did any of us agree to be bound by the decisions of the legislature? Of course, as you point out, one must keep his agreements. If I eat at a restaraunt and then skip out on the bill of course that is wrong. The private sector is totally different it is VOLUNTARY. The people who call themselves the government claim that it is morally acceptable for them to take as much of our stuff as they want by threat of violence, and if we try to fight them on it they claim the right to kill us.

The whole point of the discussion is that it is not agreed to by the payors of the tax. This is why governments buy lots of guns and build big human cages and Chilis does not.

Quote: WongBo

not everybody has the luxury of affording to privately fund every aspect of their life. Yeah I cannot afford private school because I don't love my children. You are about the level of a troll. I am blocking you. Grow up.

Respectfully, I think you totally misread what I was saying. Kids would still be educated without the government and likely receive a much better education. I live near LA, the LAUSD graduates about 60% of the kids from High School and spends....$15,000 a year per student!!! Laughably, they still claim that this is nowhere near enough money to educate children. Private schools generally cost about half that and do a better job. We still pay for the education, that $15k a year comes from someone's pocket, right? If the heavy burden of taxation were lifted we would have no problem affording the education of our children and still have thousands of dollars extra per year!

I understand that these ideas are challenging. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I got really pissed at the first guy to try to explain these ideas to me and it sounds like you are reacting the same way to me. However, I am a bit hurt that you would compare me to a troll and tell me to grow up. If you dont like the conversation feel free to not read the thread. I totally believe everything I am saying here and spent a good deal of time early in the thread asking people to keep an open mind.

Quote: bigfoot66

I play absolutely no part in the legislative process. When and how did any of us agree to be bound by the decisions of the legislature?

If you are trying to say that you never vote, that casts an entirely different light on all your comments about government and the political processes.

Bigfoot, maybe I took what you were saying the wrong way. I may not agree with you but you are entitled to your opinion.

Quote: SanchoPanza

If you are trying to say that you never vote, that casts an entirely different light on all your comments about government and the political processes.

I very rarely vote for people, except in primaries. I will generally vote against all of the propositions and judge confirmations we have on the ballot here in CA but that's about it. But even voting does not indicate consent to the system in my mind. Voting allows you to choose which people hold the reigns of power. They never let you vote on what power those people should have. It's brilliant, really. If the people are constantly debating who gets to steal their money, they are unlikely to question why their money is being stolen in the first place.

Quote: WongBo

Bigfoot, maybe I took what you were saying the wrong way. I may not agree with you but you are entitled to your opinion.

Thanks.

Quote: bigfoot66

If the people are constantly debating who gets to steal their money, they are unlikely to question why their money is being stolen in the first place.

I asked before but you didn't answer: what is your alternative to representative government run by officials democratically elected by the people? Do you believe the Framers of the US Constitution were overreaching? Please lay out for me your idealized interaction between society and government, from two vantage points: one in the year 1776 and one in the year 2012.

I am quoting the following from my Accounting professor. Since it fits with the topic on taxes, I will post.

The federal government spends all of its tax revenue on these four main things:

1. Social Security
2. Medicare
3. The military
4. Interest on the debt

Everything else such as building and maintaining roads, infrastructure, and other government projects are funded by borrowing money.
I welcome anyone to prove otherwise.

If they spend money on repaying debt, and they take on debt to pay for roads (etc), then it's merely an accountancy trick to say tax revenue is not spent on roads.

Quote: MathExtremist

I asked before but you didn't answer: what is your alternative to representative government run by officials democratically elected by the people? Do you believe the Framers of the US Constitution were overreaching? Please lay out for me your idealized interaction between society and government, from two vantage points: one in the year 1776 and one in the year 2012.

You're right, this is a difficult one to answer, though probably for different reasons than you think.

What is the alternative? The process of the free market will deliver services currently provided by government in a manner that is voluntary and nonviolent. How will they do this? I am not sure but I will offer a guess, but let me first make this analogy.

I predict that cell phones 10 years from now will be superior and cheaper than cell phones are today as long as regulation remains minimal and the market remains competitive and semi free. We are all reasonably sure of this, right? But we really don't know how the new cell phones will be different. We can predict that the internet will be faster, the calls might sound clearer, new applications will entertain us and make us more productive, etc. We know that this is the case because that's just how competitive markets work, they produce products that generally increase in quality and consistency over time while falling in real price. And even a technology expert cannot accurately predict exactly what technology will win or which features will be hits or misses. They all thought that consumers would be clamoring for 3D TV's, but this flopped. No one wanted a tablet PC until the iPad, and now we all want one. The market mechanisms is necessary to inform producers and consumers on what to produce and consume.

In the same way, I don't have to be an education expert to know that a competitive market for schools would drive down prices and increase quality.

I propose that the creation of law is far too important to be left to the central planners. There is no reason to think that the market could not discipline this process and the administration of justice as well as it does every other area of life.

I told you I would offer a guess on what would replace the Government. Here Goes. I believe that the dispute resolution organization model is a likely outcome in the free market. Think something of a cross between an insurance company and an arbitrator. Wikipedia has an article here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization

Quote: MikeV

I am quoting the following from my Accounting professor. Since it fits with the topic on taxes, I will post.

The federal government spends all of its tax revenue on these four main things:

1. Social Security
2. Medicare
3. The military
4. Interest on the debt

Everything else such as building and maintaining roads, infrastructure, and other government projects are funded by borrowing money.
I welcome anyone to prove otherwise.

Well money is fungible. Your proffessor is neither right nor wrong. Once you borrow money and it goes into your bank account there is no way of knowing which dollar went to finance which purchase, and it is really of little consequence.

Quote: bigfoot66

Are you so much of a slob that you would not be will not pay a few bucks a month for a private garbage removal service? You don't love your children enough to send them to school unless the government pays for it?

Are you so much of a Pollyanna that you think F-35's are free?

How about aircraft carriers?

Interstates?

Quote: bigfoot66

In the same way, I don't have to be an education expert to know that a competitive market for schools would drive down prices and increase quality.

I propose that the creation of law is far too important to be left to the central planners. There is no reason to think that the market could not discipline this process and the administration of justice as well as it does every other area of life.

Two big problems with that:

First, the free market is terrible at dealing with externalities or far-removed effects. Suppose a nuclear reactor explodes in Japan and radiation finds its way into dairy cows in Washington state. (Which it did.) In the absence of the governments of Japan and the U.S., what happens? Nothing?

Second, the free market, while perhaps optimally efficient, is not minimally variant, nor even close. Our society's moral code includes taking care of our weaker members. From an evolutionary standpoint (and a free-market standpoint), that is a suboptimal thing to do. In the State of Nature, an animal born with a birth defect dies young and does not reproduce. This increases the overall fitness of the animal population. In civilized society, we prefer not to let babies born with birth defects die. What answer does an anarchist provide for a sick child whose parents cannot afford care?

Or consider a less severe example: an unemployed worker. This plight should be familiar to many in the present economy. Does an unemployed worker who desires to work but cannot find it necessarily fall to bankruptcy and later poverty? What recourse does he have in a free market?

Replacing governments with an unregulated free market will give rise to megacorporations which take their place, to which the average person will hew to provide protection from the lawlessness outside. You'll either be an "employee" (formerly "citizen") of such an organization, or you'll be on your own. "Employment" will be voluntary but strongly indicated. The problem is that the megacorporations will only be beholden to their shareholders, which is only a small fraction of The People, not all of it. So then you have a bunch of pseudo-governmental corporations, each with their own army, making decisions for many based on the desires of the few, and the many have zero say (as opposed to a democratic vote). That's not a desirable social outcome.

Moreover, the entire philosophy is based on the premise that a free market is a workable solution. It might have been in the 1960s, and perhaps it is today, but it will not be in the future. In the future, productivity will increase to such an extent that there simply will not be jobs available for everyone. It will be practical for a small few to provide goods and services for everyone else: witness the dramatic increases in productivity and mechanized manufacturing. I don't think our current form of government is well-positioned to deal with this future, and I'm certain anarcho-capitalism isn't. Consider one futurist vision: the socioeconomic underpinnings of the Star Trek universe. In a world where you can have whatever you want by talking to a magic box on the wall, capitalism is useless. What is the basis for society then?

Quote: MathExtremist

Two big problems with that:

First, the free market is terrible at dealing with externalities or far-removed effects. Suppose a nuclear reactor explodes in Japan and radiation finds its way into dairy cows in Washington state. (Which it did.) In the absence of the governments of Japan and the U.S., what happens? Nothing?

I respectfully disagree to this common objection. People are very cognizant of externalities and while it is not perfect the market develops mechanisms to deal with them. Look at the environmental movement, "fair trade" products, etc. people are willing to pay extra to minimize their externalities. When they are not the market punishes people who ignore them. Would you litter but for the laws punishing it? Of course not. BTW, that nuclear disaster was a government problem. Government is so intertwined with big business over there that they are essentially one and the same.

Quote: MathExtremist

Second, the free market, while perhaps optimally efficient, is not minimally variant, nor even close. Our society's moral code includes taking care of our weaker members. From an evolutionary standpoint (and a free-market standpoint), that is a suboptimal thing to do. In the State of Nature, an animal born with a birth defect dies young and does not reproduce. This increases the overall fitness of the animal population. In civilized society, we prefer not to let babies born with birth defects die. What answer does an anarchist provide for a sick child whose parents cannot afford care?

Easy. Charity. Americans donate Billions of dollars to charity each year. Most of us are all willing to donate to charity. Pan handlers in busy cities easily earn over $20 an hour (this is a Bigfoot66 statistic that I just made up but is probably close to true).

But even if you buy this, its just not right to use a gun to take my money to support even a sick child. This is theft, even if for a good cause.

Quote: MathExtremist

Or consider a less severe example: an unemployed worker. This plight should be familiar to many in the present economy. Does an unemployed worker who desires to work but cannot find it necessarily fall to bankruptcy and later poverty? What recourse does he have in a free market?

Replacing governments with an unregulated free market will give rise to megacorporations which take their place, to which the average person will hew to provide protection from the lawlessness outside. You'll either be an "employee" (formerly "citizen") of such an organization, or you'll be on your own. "Employment" will be voluntary but strongly indicated. The problem is that the megacorporations will only be beholden to their shareholders, which is only a small fraction of The People, not all of it. So then you have a bunch of pseudo-governmental corporations, each with their own army, making decisions for many based on the desires of the few, and the many have zero say (as opposed to a democratic vote). That's not a desirable social outcome.

Moreover, the entire philosophy is based on the premise that a free market is a workable solution. It might have been in the 1960s, and perhaps it is today, but it will not be in the future. In the future, productivity will increase to such an extent that there simply will not be jobs available for everyone. It will be practical for a small few to provide goods and services for everyone else: witness the dramatic increases in productivity and mechanized manufacturing. I don't think our current form of government is well-positioned to deal with this future, and I'm certain anarcho-capitalism isn't. Consider one futurist vision: the socioeconomic underpinnings of the Star Trek universe. In a world where you can have whatever you want by talking to a magic box on the wall, capitalism is useless. What is the basis for society then?

I think your economic analysis here is, nontraditional. As long as man has unlimited wants, then there will never be a "not enough jobs" problem (Fine, if the star trek universe comes to be, I will become a statist. ;) My philosophy relies on property rights so in a world without scarcity the concept of property is meaningless. Note that in this world where scarcity does not exist casinos also become obsolete. ). Our current mess and unemployment can be blamed on the state through regulation as well as the unbalanced economy that resulted from the ham handed meddling of the Federal Reserve. If we were going to run into a "people are too productive" problem that would have happened by now. We are already productive enough to feed clothe and shelter humanity with a small percentage of the population but people want iphones and casinos and..... People always want more stuff. Jobs are not a good in themselves, as your posts suggest. Jobs Suck!!! If I could live comfortably without working I would much rather be reading Hayek and eating steak than working!

I believe that there was some bureacrat at the Patent office over 100 years ago who famously said that basically everything that could be invented already had. Wrongo Bongo. Same thing here. Our standard of living will continue to rise and there will be plenty of work to be done.

On a seperate note, you beileve that a free market favors large corporations over small ones, I would argue the opposite. Navigating a sea of government regulations is very expensive and serves as a barrier to entry for new firms. Plus regulators cannot be nuetral, and who is more likely to influence regulators to write the rules in their favor, Mom and Pop or a Mitt Romney like corporate plastic man?

Btw I am glad that you are keeping the discussion alive, I enjoy it!

Quote: bigfoot66

On a seperate note, you beileve that a free market favors large corporations over small ones, I would argue the opposite. Navigating a sea of government regulations is very expensive and serves as a barrier to entry for new firms. Plus regulators cannot be nuetral, and who is more likely to influence regulators to write the rules in their favor, Mom and Pop or a Mitt Romney like corporate plastic man?

Didn't you just agree with ME?

bigfoot66, are you located in Vegas? The Libertarian Party National Convention is there in a few weeks at Red Rock Resort. I see that you are an RP supporter rather than a Gary Johnson man (like myself), but it may be interesting for you to see some of their speakers and talk to the people there. I'd be tempted to go if I wasn't already going to be in town next weekend.

Quote: bigfoot66

I respectfully disagree to this common objection. People are very cognizant of externalities and while it is not perfect the market develops mechanisms to deal with them. Look at the environmental movement, "fair trade" products, etc. people are willing to pay extra to minimize their externalities.

That's on the margins. I can buy a Prius or a Hummer, sure. The real problem is when party A has a strong financial incentive to diminish a public resource for private gain. In an unregulated market, they do exactly that, with zero direct consequences and only zealot environmentalists to call them on it. You and I both know that most people's purchasing decisions aren't based on externality minimization. The free market will *never* properly address things like pollution control, at least not before a whole lot of people get sick. That's why environmental regulation is needed. Consider the Hinkley water contamination dramatized in the movie Erin Brockovich -- what would have been the outcome absent a government (including the courts) which operated based on rule of law?

Is it your belief that screwing up the planet and making lots of people sick is an acceptable waypoint toward "teaching humanity the lesson"? Or do you dispute the tenet of public resources at all, instead arguing that everything (even the air we breathe and the water we drink) should be private property?

Quote:

BTW, that nuclear disaster was a government problem. Government is so intertwined with big business over there that they are essentially one and the same.

That's B.S. and you know it. The tsunami wasn't caused by the government.

Quote:

But even if you buy this, its just not right to use a gun to take my money to support even a sick child. This is theft, even if for a good cause.

It's not theft if we've agreed to it, which we *have* by *voting for taxation laws*. This is a great country, but you are free to leave it if you don't like the way things work, or you are free to vote in representatives to change it. But you're proposing that the entire foundation of our nation, "government of the people, by the people, and for the people", should indeed perish from this Earth. Laid bare, your philosophy approaches sedition.

Quote:

I think your economic analysis here is, nontraditional. As long as man has unlimited wants,

Man doesn't have unlimited wants. There are plenty of people who would be satisfied being taken care of at a specific standard of living vs. working for extras on the margin. You even admitted that you're one of them:

Quote:

Jobs Suck!!! If I could live comfortably without working I would much rather be reading Hayek and eating steak than working!

Right, so would most other people. I'd go back to school and study acoustics, then design a series of musical instruments that are easier to play and keep in tune. Point is, in a society of hyper-productivity, a well-organized government could provide such a comfortable living for its citizens. Smaller Nordic nations with heavily-socialized policies are already making credible attempts at that. Nothing resembling anarcho-capitalism comes even close.

Quote:

On a seperate note, you beileve that a free market favors large corporations over small ones, I would argue the opposite. Navigating a sea of government regulations is very expensive and serves as a barrier to entry for new firms. Plus regulators cannot be nuetral, and who is more likely to influence regulators to write the rules in their favor, Mom and Pop or a Mitt Romney like corporate plastic man?

This is self-contradictory so I can't really parse it. I believe that in the absence of government, the natural evolution of capitalism will be toward a plurality of megalithic corporations which effectively provide for their employees, but which are not ultimately accountable thereto. I find that less desirable than our current form of society.

The free market is best at figuring out how to make a buck. I'm all for letting the free market decide how to make a better mousetrap but making the roads that get me from my house to your store to buy that better mousetrap are not to going to be paved by the better roads and bridges store. There's no money in that. William K. Vanderbilt tried it and failed.

The free market is good at delivering the stuff we want. The government is necessary for delivering the stuff we need.

None of this actually explains why Taxation is -illegal- (rather than immoral). Is this one of the money weird and confusing non-corporate entity type deals I've seen some people try and explain online (really badly)?

Quote: thecesspit

None of this actually explains why Taxation is -illegal- (rather than immoral). Is this one of the money weird and confusing non-corporate entity type deals I've seen some people try and explain online (really badly)?

It's not, but I don't think that's what he's arguing. I think he's arguing that laws themselves (all of them) are immoral because they are promulgated by a government which is itself immoral.

Anarchy (having no government; having no leader) in any form is doomed to fail. Humans are a social species and we naturally organize ourselves. Stripping away the current governmental organization would simply give rise to another social hierarchy of one form or another, whether one wants to call it a "government" or not. I am not a proper historian, but to my knowledge there has never been a stable, sustainable broad-based anarchy in any human society. (I use "broad-based" to denote a real-world system which addresses the majority of human needs/wants as opposed to a narrow anarchy which may be on display in, for example, unmoderated Internet forums.)

One of the primary function of any national government is national security. It comes in many forms, from police on the streets to military to aid sent to foreign nations to keep them friendly. All of these cost money, and that money comes from taxation. Remove the funding from government, you remove its ability to defend the nation, and you invite some warlord to come in and impose HIS will instead of the will of the people.

Is our government perfect? Far from it.
Does it stupidly waste money? yes.
Is my tax money worth keep the nation safe? That and more.

Quote: jdd817

One of the primary function of any national government is national security. It comes in many forms, from police on the streets to military to aid sent to foreign nations to keep them friendly. All of these cost money, and that money comes from taxation.

All true.

Quote:

Remove the funding from government, you remove its ability to defend the nation, and you invite some warlord to come in and impose HIS will instead of the will of the people.

Also true, but misleading. You're implying the only way for governemnt to raise revenue is through taxation; ie through forcibly taking money from the citizenry. This is an open question. There are other ways for governemnts to raise revenue. For example, taxes could be voluntary. Yes, there are problems with this idea, too, but there are problems with taxation as well.

And yet the whole notion of taxation is a side issue. The really important issue is: what should be the scope of government?

Quote: Nareed

And yet the whole notion of taxation is a side issue. The really important issue is: what should be the scope of government?

I'm not sure you can consider taxation a side issue. The two are heavily intertwined: what is the scope of government, and how do we pay for it? The issue of paying for government only falls away if you diminish its scope to nothing.

I think we can readily dispense with the notion that any meaningful number of people would agree to no government whatsoever. I personally don't want to be responsible for national defense, quashing disease outbreaks, policing borders, building and maintaining the commercial transportation infrastructure -- I'm no good at those things, so I choose to pay others to handle that for me. Given that I'm going to pay, I would *rather* pay an entity which is ultimately accountable to me than one which is not. *That* is the fundamental distinction between our representative democracy and the English monarchies from which it was forged. We The People make the laws based on our own self-interest, not the King based only on his. Arguing about the allowable scope of those laws is a fine exercise, but that's altogether different than suggesting that there should be no laws at all.

Quote: Nareed

And yet the whole notion of taxation is a side issue. The really important issue is: what should be the scope of government?

Not if the debate here is about someone's attempt to evade paying taxes because they claim income taxation is illegal, and it's illegal, because it's immoral (I think that's the claim). I'm cool with you deciding it's immoral or the scope of government is incorrect, but it does tell me why it's illegal (immoral things are legal, and moral things are illegal).

Quote: MathExtremist

I'm not sure you can consider taxation a side issue. The two are heavily intertwined: what is the scope of government, and how do we pay for it? The issue of paying for government only falls away if you diminish its scope to nothing.

To begin with the scope of governemnt dictates how much money it needs to operate. Then you can determine how best to obtain the money. So first you define scope, then you look at financing.

If you want to open a lemonade stand, you don't need to issue stock or get loans from large banks. If you want to build a mega resort casino in vgeas, you don't look for spare change under the couch cushions to finance it.