A small government that protects those individual rights that we deem important enough to accept the necessary evil of coercion. Protection from physical violence certainly is one that comes to mind.

We've talked a while about why I believe the fundamental principles underlying government are flawed, but we haven't yet gotten into why the practical implication of those principles are much worse. Shall we?

You can not vote for them.

I don’t see why I’d want to.

Begging government is taking on the task. If you want a hammer do you attempt to make one yourself, or do you ask the blacksmith?

I don’t beg the blacksmith for a hammer. We agree to a price and I purchase his services. This is free exchange. It would be comparable to government only if I had already payed the blacksmith and now had to beg to receive a hammer.

Maybe it seems that way to you, but plenty of others would contest that that is removing the tenant from their rightful property at the behest of an unjust claim over it by another, because use justifies ownership. — Pfhorrest

Well, with that mindset, I think nobody would rent anything and we would often have to spend way more money buying something. The benefit of being able to rent is that sometimes you need to use something for a short amount of time and it wouldn’t be worth buying that thing. I’m not sure how radical your viewpoint on this is. Would you go as far as to say that a hotel who has a guest that just stayed there for one night owns that hotel room? For how long do you have to use something for you to think that the user of that thing owns that thing.

The underlying moral principle is that it is wrong to confiscate and plunder the earnings of someone else. — NOS4A2

For fuck sake. It's not your earnings, we've been through this. You can't just make things the case by ignoring all contradiction.

Your earnings do not belong to you. Some portion of them belongs to the government.

A small government that protects those individual rights that we deem important enough to accept the necessary evil of coercion. — Tzeentch

Yep. Completely agree with you.

Shall we? — Tzeentch

Why not?

I don’t beg the blacksmith for a hammer. We agree to a price and I purchase his services. This is free exchange. It would be comparable to government only if I had already payed the blacksmith and now had to beg to receive a hammer. — NOS4A2

I didn't ask about your personal preferences for how you like to get stuff done. You're simply manifestly wrong about 'begging the government' being different to taking on the task oneself.

This reply doesn't address what I raised. If you have no moral right to those earnings, there's no plunder or confiscation going on.

This reply doesn't address what I raised. If you have no moral right to those earnings, there's no plunder or confiscation going on.

Why would I have no moral right to my earnings? I didn’t quite understand that part.

For fuck sake. It's not your earnings, we've been through this. You can't just make things the case by ignoring all contradiction.

Your earnings do not belong to you. Some portion of them belongs to the government.

Right, and slaves once belonged to their masters by law. The point isn’t whether they do or don’t, but whether it is right or wrong to do so, something you’ve consistently avoided.I think of all the times those in power claimed they had this or that right to take from their subjects, and I picture you there cheering them on.

When I compare power-hungry individuals occupying a corporation vs a government, I prefer the mercantilist to the dictator. — NOS4A2

I'm assuming that you live in a democracy - i.e., not Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc. If I'm mistaken in that assumption, then I apologize because you have a whole different set of problems.

At least I can refuse to work with or purchase the services of the mercantilist, — NOS4A2

Not when the mercantilist has monopoly control of an essential item - food, water, clothing, housing. And remember that this will happen in your hypothetical unregulated economy.

That we have to beg our governments to address these concerns instead of taking on the task ourselves is just another hurdle to seeing it through. — NOS4A2

In a democracy, however flawed it may be, you are the government. In a democracy you and your fellow citizens have the final say on what the government does. If you do not like the decisions your fellow citizens have made, if you do not like the policies your government is pursuing, you can pick up and move to another state/province/country where things are run more to your liking.

I highly doubt that you will find any such place, but I could be wrong.

Or you can always buy a boat and live out int the ocean. Or perhaps this might be a good solution for you.

For a moral right to exist to pre-tax income, the moral worth of the person and the services ought to be valued and thereby lead to a just and fair distribution of work and pay. There is no such valuation, so whatever you get paid is not the morally correct outcome. So if the outcome is unjust, you cannot claim a moral right to the results of that unjust outcome.

For example, where there are 2 workers with the same skill, it would be morally correct if the one that's starving gets the job. Since the market system is incapable off taking such moral issues into account, you cannot claim a moral right to whatever earnings you make as a result.

For taxation to be theft, there must be a right to pre-tax income. Legally, this is clearly not the case.

A moral right to pre-tax can only be said to exist if earned income results in a fair and equitable payment for labour rendered. This too is false. Market circumstances are not concerned with the moral worth of labour or who needs the job the most or who is most deserving of fulfilling the assignment. So a moral right to pre-tax income is incoherent.

Since no rights are infringed, there's no theft. — Benkei

Maybe it goes back then to what we understand as the proper role of government. Is the overarching goal of government to provide everyone a level playing field or is it something else like to try to ensure the population life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

I do believe in taxes, by the way, but when people push the argument that citizens have zero rightful claim to their income it should set off a few alarm bells unless we believe the main goal of government is some type of large scale social engineering that is to be achieved through massive wealth confiscation and redistribution.

Maybe it goes back then to what we understand as the proper role of government. Is the overarching goal of government to provide everyone a level playing field or is it something else like to try to ensure the population life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? — BitconnectCarlos

That's also, in my view, the main ethical discussion. What's the role of government? I'm partial to John Rawls approach with the veil of ignorance and reflexivity.

During our discussion we have worked from the assumption that governments produce mostly positive outcomes, to counterbalance their usage of unjust means. In reality, we see corruption, propaganda, shameless disregard for individual (and sometimes human) rights. We see governments that with every attempt to solve a problem create a dozen new ones. What we see is governments playing political games with often war as a result. Wars that have only increased in scale since history has been recorded, that have killed hundreds of millions in the last century, and that during the Cold War were literally on the verge of wiping out humanity.

I do not need more proof that governments cannot be trusted with power, and that everything must be done to curb what little power they should be allowed to hold.

In addition, with the idea of government, comes the problem of individuals having to hold large amounts of power. Again, history shows what power does to individuals. It inevitably corrupts. First it attempts to consolidate, then it attempts to grow. Corruption is a process that simply cannot be avoided, and it ultimately secures the fate of a nation, just like is now visibly happening in the United States.

Well, with that mindset, I think nobody would rent anything and we would often have to spend way more money buying something. The benefit of being able to rent is that sometimes you need to use something for a short amount of time and it wouldn’t be worth buying that thing. I’m not sure how radical your viewpoint on this is. Would you go as far as to say that a hotel who has a guest that just stayed there for one night owns that hotel room? For how long do you have to use something for you to think that the user of that thing owns that thing. — TheHedoMinimalist

I actually don’t agree completely with the use-is-ownership principle for reasons similar to your questions (how long do I have to be away from home before it stops being my home? a decade? a day? a year? an hour? why that long exactly?). But I do think that there are other changes to how we construct our property rights that ought to be made both for deontological reasons and because of good consequences, one of which is discouraging scenarios where one person owns something that another person regularly uses, for the profit of the former at the expense of the latter, i.e. rent. Something approximating rent is still possible to construct under my scheme, so long as that’s actually what everyone involved actually wants, like a hotel room of whatever. Going into the full details on this would be a huge derailment of this thread though.

That's also, in my view, the main ethical discussion. What's the role of government? I'm partial to John Rawls approach with the veil of ignorance and reflexivity. — Benkei

The thing I kind of struggle with with Rawls is that he basically asks us to be non-situated, i.e. pretend that we're a mind floating up in the ethereal and go from there in terms of designing society.

I just don't know the extent to which people can do this. Then again I haven't touched Rawls since undergrad so feel free to correct my ignorance on this one if there's something I'm missing.

EDIT: It's like if two non-disabled people were to ask how they'd want severely disabled people to be treated in this society how would they have any idea? Would they want to just be euthanized shortly after birth? Would they want state care or to be left with their families? Who knows.

Really? I thought he brought it down to earth quite well. You're one of the negotiators at a table, each of them represent a group of people (age groups or physical characteristics, whatever) but they don't know which group they are representing but they are still to get the best deal possible for whoever they're representing. Basically it requires you to consider and value all interests involved with respect to a given proposal.

For a moral right to exist to pre-tax income, the moral worth of the person and the services ought to be valued and thereby lead to a just and fair distribution of work and pay. There is no such valuation, so whatever you get paid is not the morally correct outcome. So if the outcome is unjust, you cannot claim a moral right to the results of that unjust outcome.

For example, where there are 2 workers with the same skill, it would be morally correct if the one that's starving gets the job. Since the market system is incapable off taking such moral issues into account, you cannot claim a moral right to whatever earnings you make as a result.

I am unable to see how the market system prohibits such hiring. Any employer can easily decide the “moral worth” of a person, and decide who to hire based on his own conscience or on the possibility of just outcomes. People can, and have, run companies that explicitly hire the homeless or convicts, for example.

The government, on the other hand, confiscates and distributes wealth based on amoral factors, such as income. They take the money because you have it, not because you are more deserving or in need of it or the outcomes would be more just. Also, where I live I have two different sales taxes on general goods and services, the provincial sales tax (5%) and the general sales tax (7%). Everyone has to pay them, rich and poor, young and old, with zero valuation of moral or even financial worth. Considering these I would argue the opposite. It is the government that is incapable of taking moral issues into account. How could they? We are little more than SIN numbers to them, after all.

Really? I thought he brought it down to earth quite well. You're one of the negotiators at a table, each of them represent a group of people (age groups or physical characteristics, whatever) but they don't know which group they are representing but they are still to get the best deal possible for whoever they're representing. — Benkei

Couldn't we just simplify this and say everyone's just looking for the best all around deal that's nicest to all the groups? Tying this back to taxation, what's the implication? Is it that government ought to tax and redistribute heavily to ensure all groups are fairly compensated and that no one group gets to keep too much?

I am unable to see how the market system prohibits such hiring. Any employer can easily decide the “moral worth” of a person, and decide who to hire based on his own conscience or on the possibility of just outcomes. People can, and have, run companies that explicitly hire the homeless or convicts, for example. — NOS4A2

Of course this isn't possible. That some people let themselves be guided by some moral principles when hiring, still doesn't lead to a moral and just outcome. Certainly when only some do it but even when all would do it, your still don't have a just outcome. How can market actors tell to hire a local or a Bangladeshi to make your shirt? How can market actors tell how much to pay nurses as opposed to, let's say, cigarette manufacturers or cocaïne producers? So the idea you have a moral right to these market outcomes is simply incoherent.

And that's not even going into issues like the polluter pays principle, environmental, safety and health standards for workers, which are costs market actors will externalise unless they're forced to take them into account.

The idea markets can solve every issue or ever result in moral outcomes is deeply flawed.

I would think the purpose is no group gets too little and we'd probably vote for inclusivity too based on what I perceive as the public conscious of the Netherlands. So build side walks broad enough for wheelchairs and wheelchair access for wheelchair users. That sort of thing. Public health and education are likely outcomes too. Even so, part of what is considered moral is also cultural so different societies would reach different conclusions.

The point isn’t whether they do or don’t, but whether it is right or wrong to do so, something you’ve consistently avoided. — NOS4A2

I haven't avoided it, you never asked what I thought a fair payment in return for labour would be. It's incoherent for you to berate determining ownership by law when the the only issue you're raising against the current system of remuneration is the tax element. all the rest of it is still determined by law. So the fickleness of law isn't your issue.

The point is, as @Benkei is also saying, you've provided us with no means other than law, to determine fair payment for work done, and the law includes taxes. Market valuation includes taxes. Personal agreements as to who should get what include taxes.

What you'd need to provide to support your case is some means of determining how much a person should be paid for the work they do which just happens to arrive at the exact pre-tax wage worked out using our current system, which, on the face of it, is ludicrous.

The government, on the other hand, confiscates and distributes wealth based on amoral factors, such as income. — NOS4A2

How is income an amoral factor. All income is generated at least in part by taking from common resources. If you take something that isn't yours without payment, that's immoral, right? That's the exact definition of immoral you're using. So anyone not voluntarily giving a fair portion of their income to support those common resources is acting immorally. The government is therefore right to confiscate some of their property. Either you pay the tax voluntarily (in which case it's not confiscation), or you try to keep profit which is not your to keep (an immoral act and so deserving of the confiscation of those profits).

I have two different sales taxes on general goods and services, the provincial sales tax (5%) and the general sales tax (7%). Everyone has to pay them, rich and poor, young and old, with zero valuation of moral or even financial worth. Considering these I would argue the opposite. It is the government that is incapable of taking moral issues into account. — NOS4A2

You've just argued yourself that it is immoral to take something which isn't yours. 5% of any product's price pays for the common resources which went into making it, to try and take that product without paying for the use of those resources is theft, an immoral act. The government is acting perfectly morally by ensuring those common resources are well-managed and requiring payment for that service.

During our discussion we have worked from the assumption that governments produce mostly positive outcomes, to counterbalance their usage of unjust means. — Tzeentch

I don't think we have. In some ways, that's the point I'm trying to draw out. That you criticise government structures simply because you don't like some of the things your current government is doing. That's not a sound argument.

In reality, we see corruption, propaganda, shameless disregard for individual (and sometimes human) rights. We see governments that with every attempt to solve a problem create a dozen new ones. What we see is governments playing political games with often war as a result. Wars that have only increased in scale since history has been recorded, that have killed hundreds of millions in the last century, and that during the Cold War were literally on the verge of wiping out humanity. — Tzeentch

All of which are perpetrated by democratically elected governments. The people of your country elected these spineless morons to run things. So what on earth makes you think that putting decisions back into the hands of these very people is going to improve things? again, you're using the same tactic you used with tax specifically, now with government in general. That one situation is bad does not constitute an argument in favour of any alternative you care to offer. That a ship is sinking does not mean jumping into icy water becomes a good alternative.

I do not need more proof that governments cannot be trusted with power, and that everything must be done to curb what little power they should be allowed to hold. — Tzeentch

Someone will hold power - the strong, the majority, the wealthy, the best connected... You can't just point to any one group and say that because they've done bad things the power ought to be taken from them and given to one of the others. You have to also demonstrate that one of the other would handle it better. If you want power returned to provincial governments, you have to show that provincial governments, collectively, make less of a mess than federated governments do, otherwise you're just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. You've yet to make such an argument.

history shows what power does to individuals. It inevitably corrupts. First it attempts to consolidate, then it attempts to grow. Corruption is a process that simply cannot be avoided, and it ultimately secures the fate of a nation, just like is now visibly happening in the United States. — Tzeentch

Yes. And political power is not the only form of power. so you make your small government... whose then to stop Google, Amazon and Facebook from accumulating vast power? Once more, your failure to detail the alternative makes your argument weak. Yes governments give power to individuals and that leads to corruption - no argument from me there. Without government restraint, monopolised companies give power to their CEOs and that leads to corruption. So where's the improvement made by restricting the power of government, all you've done is transfer it to someone else?

In some ways, that's the point I'm trying to draw out. That you criticise government structures simply because you don't like some of the things your current government is doing. — Isaac

I think the things we have discussed are all fundamentally a part of government structures.

All of which are perpetrated by democratically elected governments. The people of your country elected these spineless morons to run things. So what on earth makes you think that putting decisions back into the hands of these very people is going to improve things? — Isaac

Governments hold centralized power, which is something individual citizens of a nation do not. I do not expect anyone to run things well, because power inevitably draws the corrupt and breeds corruption.

Decentralizing power ensures that those in power have a minimal capacity to force their will onto others. I'm not arguing it's a perfect system. As long as man is imperfect, his systems will be imperfect. But I see absolutely no argument for giving governments and individuals within governments the power over millions of citizens. We know where it leads.

You have to also demonstrate that one of the other would handle it better. If you want power returned to provincial governments, you have to show that provincial governments, collectively, make less of a mess than federated governments do, otherwise you're just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. You've yet to make such an argument. — Isaac

The argument for decentralizing power, is that ultimately it makes dysfunctional power structures escapable. The question may become, how do we keep decentralized power from centralizing itself? Perhaps it requires a continuous effort.

Yes. And political power is not the only form of power. so you make your small government... whose then to stop Google, Amazon and Facebook from accumulating vast power? — Isaac

The only reason one even needs to worry about these types of companies, is because they try to control people by trying to control powerful governments who have the mandate to violence and coercion. Powerful government is the enabler here, not the remedy.

I think the things we have discussed are all fundamentally a part of government structures. — Tzeentch

Really? You think it's a structural issue that governments show "corruption, propaganda, shameless disregard for individual (and sometimes human) rights". That seems like an odd conclusion. How do you see that working. Like it's impossible for a government not to do those things?

I see absolutely no argument for giving governments and individuals within governments the power over millions of citizens. We know where it leads. — Tzeentch

I provided one earlier. The alternative is warring city states and we know where that leads too. We've been there.

The argument for decentralizing power, is that ultimately it makes dysfunctional power structures escapable. The question may become, how do we keep decentralized power from centralizing itself? Perhaps it requires a continuous effort. — Tzeentch

Effort of what? This is just a hand-waiving cop out. The whole raison d'être of centralised government is to prevent a repeat of the very bloody process of centralisation happening all over again. It's monumentally reckless to advocate abandoning this project and then hand-waive the possibly devastating consequences with "Oh I'm sure we'll work it out nearer the time..." If you haven't got a very clear and well evidenced method of avoiding bloody civil war and degradation of shared resources between decentralized states then my assessment of you seems not so far off. You're basically willing to risk mass warfare and global environmental crisis just so that a government can't use your taxes to support gay marriage (or whatever progressive government scheme it is you disapprove of).

The only reason one even needs to worry about these types of companies, is because they try to control people by trying to control powerful governments who have the mandate to violence and coercion. Powerful government is the enabler here, not the remedy. — Tzeentch

Nonsense. Amazon provides appalling working conditions, comes close to breaching human rights in developing world sources and pollutes common resources. None of this is done by appropriating government coercion. It's done because the laws allow it. Worse is not done because governments prevent it. Without centralised government, what is to stop Amazon from removing even further worker's rights, from ignoring sustainable resource limits in their supply chain, from driving developing world workers into slavery? How do you propose to prevent these things without centralised government?

Even so, part of what is considered moral is also cultural so different societies would reach different conclusions. — Benkei

I agree with that, and in doing so acknowledge that it can be tough to truly conceive ourselves as truly independent, disembodied minds pondering this type of thought experiment.

I gotta say, I wonder though in a game theory sense whether it might ever make sense to just completely gut one group (say, 5% of the population) for the benefit of the other 95%. There's only a small chance after all that you were the "negotiator" for that 5% and in favoring the 95% you probably advanced the interests of your group.

The idea of advocating on behalf of an unknown group is a little strange to me. I feel like we should reformulate this for better clarity.

EDIT: One more question, must we advocate for groups like "pedophiles" and "people who are capable and able to work, but refuse to do so and instead claim benefits."

Like it's impossible for a government not to do those things? — Isaac

The use of violence, coercion and the process of corruption and wherever those may lead it, yes. Undoubtedly.

The whole raison d'être of centralised government is to prevent a repeat of the very bloody process of centralisation happening all over again. — Isaac

Centralized government has to do with consolidation of power, not with preventing bloodshed. And it has done none of the sort over the course of history. Again, the greatest atrocities in our history have been committed by centralized governments.

You're basically willing to risk mass warfare and global environmental crisis just so that a government can't use your taxes to support gay marriage (or whatever progressive government scheme it is you disapprove of). — Isaac

That's a bit of a hyperbole, but just like in any other system based on unjust means, there's a chance of citizens using those same unjust means against it. Violence is self-perpetuating. Hence, why I fundamentally disagree with its use.

And so far centralized governments have shown quite the opposite of preventing mass warfare and environmental disasters, so pick your poison.

Also, I thought we were past your shameless attempts of trying to frame me.
Now I am some homophobe as well? Puh-lease. Show some class. So far you've been wrong in all your assumptions about me.

"This person said words I don't like, so they must be a despicable person."

Nonsense. Amazon provides appalling working conditions, comes close to breaching human rights in developing world sources and pollutes common resources. None of this is done by appropriating government coercion. It's done because the laws allow it. Worse is not done because governments prevent it. Without centralised government, what is to stop Amazon from removing even further worker's rights, from ignoring sustainable resource limits in their supply chain, from driving developing world workers into slavery? How do you propose to prevent these things without centralised government? — Isaac

Developing countries usually struggle with a myriad of other problems, government corruption undoubtedly one of them. And your answer is to give such corrupt governments a further mandate for violence and coercion.

The problem you sketch is a complex one, and I don't see how centralized government contributes to a solution.

In some developed countries minimum wage is determined by collective bargaining rather than law, and one could argue employees there get better wages and benefits because of it. Bargaining has been the mainstay method of determining renumeration since time immemorial, after all, whether there is law, taxes or not.

I agree that bargaining for renumeration necessarily includes taxes wherever taxation exists, but people do not do so because it is right and moral. They do it because they have to or risk punishment. This to say nothing of under-the-table employment or black markets, where taxes need not apply at all.

So the assumption that only law can determine renumeration is a false and one. Worse, it risks filling heads with the stupid idea that one cannot haggle over wages with employers and should run to authorities instead.

The notion of “common resources” seems to me unappealing. I live in a very vast country. I don’t claim any ownership over the territories and resources of the Inuit peoples, for example. I would not go there (nor could I) and take their resources just because I claim to have some share over it, because I just so happen to live within the same border. Their land is owned by them, not the common public. It was once the state’s land, sure, all of which has been acquired by the divine right of kings and conquest, but I can no less work to receive my own parcel without stealing anything. The only one who stole land, in fact, is the state.

But again, this is all beside my point, which is that taxes are immoral.

To abuse Nozik’s argument, In order to pay a tax one is forced to labor for the benefit of others. If 20% of my income goes to the government, that means 20% of my labor is forced to serve the benefit of someone else. If 100% of my labor is forced to serve the benefit of someone else, we might call that some degree or other of slavery. Nozik calls it forced labor.

I don’t believe “forced labor” suffices, simply because I am not forced to work. In my own case, the government simply comes along like a loan shark and demands I pay what is owed to him (an amount only they can define), or else I receive some sort of punishment. So I prefer “extortion” or “theft”. Either way, this transaction is an immoral one because there is no consent and it is enforced by coercion.

Like it's impossible for a government not to do those things? — Isaac


The use of violence, coercion and the process of corruption and wherever those may lead it, yes. Undoubtedly. — Tzeentch

By what mechanism?

The whole raison d'être of centralised government is to prevent a repeat of the very bloody process of centralisation happening all over again. — Isaac


Centralized government has to do with consolidation of power, not with preventing bloodshed. And it has done none of the sort over the course of history. Again, the greatest atrocities in our history have been committed by centralized governments. — Tzeentch

No.

The greatest atrocity of our history in terms of deaths was perpetrated by the board of British American tobacco. In terms of Poverty, disease and other measures of well-being it has been perpetrated smaller regional governments (as in the case of much of West Africa), or companies acting as colonial powers (like DeBeers). In terms of environmental degradation, it's without doubt companies like Shell, BP and Exon who may well yet yield a death toll higher than British American Tobacco.

The largest centralised form of government today is the UN which, in it's 55 year history has started a total of 0 wars, caused 0 atrocities but instead is responsible for the Human Rights, feeding billions of starving children and several worldwide disease eradication efforts.

Violence is self-perpetuating. Hence, why I fundamentally disagree with its use. — Tzeentch

It's going to be used anyway. You can't prevent a bully by telling him you disagree with violence. Your 'disagreement' might as well be pissing in wind for the effect it actually has.

Developing countries usually struggle with a myriad of other problems, government corruption undoubtedly one of them. And your answer is to give such corrupt governments a further mandate for violence and coercion. — Tzeentch

Who said anything about giving corrupt governments more power? Why would agreeing with centralisation mean doing nothing about corruption? Again, if you want to argue that centralisation inevitably leads to irredeemable corruption, you'll have to do more than just hand-waive at it. Why can we not tackle corruption with better scrutiny and legislation?

In some developed countries minimum wage is determined by collective bargaining rather than law, and one could argue employees there get better wages and benefits because of it. Bargaining has been the mainstay method of determining renumeration since time immemorial, after all, whether there is law, taxes or not. — NOS4A2

So? Explain exactly what any of that has to do with the fact that part of your wage packet is the property of the government? Note, I've never claimed that wages cannot be negotiated have I? The claim is that your wages have been negotiated with the expectation that some portion of them will be paid to the government, hence that portion does not belong to you by contractual agreement (it doesn't belong to you ethically, nor legally either, but those are other arguments addressed separately).

I agree that bargaining for renumeration necessarily includes taxes wherever taxation exists, but people do not do so because it is right and moral. They do it because they have to or risk punishment. This to say nothing of under-the-table employment or black markets, where taxes need not apply at all. — NOS4A2

Again, what has this fact got to do with the argument here? Honestly, if you can't follow a line of argument there's little point in contributing. The argument here is against the notion that your wages are rightfully yours because they have been negotiated by mutual agreement. The argument that they are not yours on moral grounds is a different argument. That people do not negotiate morally, or pay tax morally has absolutely nothing to do with the current line of argument. The tax portion of your wage packet is not your by right of mutual agreement because that mutual agreement assumes tax. That's all.

So the assumption that only law can determine renumeration is a false and one. — NOS4A2

Indeed it is, which is, I suppose, why no-one made such a claim.

The notion of “common resources” seems to me unappealing. — NOS4A2

Who gives a shit how 'appealing' it is to you?

I live in a very vast country. I don’t claim any ownership over the territories and resources of the Inuit peoples, for example. I would not go there (nor could I) and take their resources just because I claim to have some share over it, because I just so happen to live within the same border. — NOS4A2

See, this is why I impute you people with ulterior motives, because the alternative is to believe that you really are that stupid. Do I have to spell it out for you like we're in Primary school? Do you understand how the atmosphere works, the oceans... anything?

The only one who stole land, in fact, is the state. — NOS4A2

Completely false, in the case you're citing settlers stole the land with the backing of state armies, the state never took ownership (or when it did it was transitory). But nonetheless, this is the crux of the matter. So, if I steal your car and then sell it to my son, that's no longer your car, right? It's his - all done and dusted and you no longer have a claim to it, right?

In order to pay a tax one is forced to labor for the benefit of others. If 20% of my income goes to the government, that means 20% of my labor is forced to serve the benefit of someone else. — NOS4A2

Not even a bit true because, as as been shown to you ad infinitum now, the remuneration you get for your labour assumes tax. Your gross wage is not the amount of money which reflects the labour you put in, not by any metric at all.

Your net wage is the amount of money that has been negotiated as being the value of your labour.

Whether you see that agreement as being derived legally, or by negotiation, or by market forces, it does not change the fact that it is your net wage that everyone involved knows you will take home in compensation for your labour. Your net wage is the amount your employer thinks your labour is worth Your net wage is the amount you can obtain by marketing. Your net wage is the amount you're legally entitled to... Whatever means you use to determine remuneration it is your net wage that is being considered, the difference between that and your gross wage was never yours, not in negotiation, not legally, not by market value, nothing, It was always the government's.

The claim is that your wages have been negotiated with the expectation that some portion of them will be paid to the government, hence that portion does not belong to you by contractual agreement (it doesn't belong to you ethically, nor legally either, but those are other arguments addressed separately).

The fact that you expect or assume a portion of my wage will (or should) be payed to the government is question-begging. Your expectations, assumptions, and other mental furniture do not factor into any contract unless it is written or stated explicitly and agreed upon. If there are such explicit expectations then maybe you can furnish an example.

While it is true that employment contracts often contain a note that a salary is subject to deductions and taxes, this is to inform the employee of what will happen to a portion of his salary, not to declare any right or property of the government. Employers deduct from an employee’s compensation because they face fine and punishment if they do not, not because that compensation is in fact the government’s property. And the question as to whose compensation they are deducting from is a silly one.

It doesn’t matter what “everyone involved knows you will take home in compensation for your labour” unless it is explicitly stated in the contract or agreement. Again, your assumptions, expectations, and what you think you know is merely question begging. The “gross wage” is what is agreed upon as the compensation. The “net wage” is what’s left over after the government has its way with it. If you and your employer negotiate $100,000 a year, that is the gross salary, the total from which taxes are deducted. It doesn’t mean you tacitly agreed to a less amount.

At any rate, payroll deductions and taxes are calculated after the wage is determined, as the determined wage is required to calculate the cost of deductions in the first place. These deductions are determined by the government, are enforced by coercion, in most cases extorted by fine or other penalties.

So if all parties agree to the wage, the wage is then payed for services rendered, the money will exchange hands from employer to employee, and what was once the employer’s property is now the employee’s property. Finally, the government takes the employee’s property.

Capital gains tax is terrible and disincentivizes investing and also makes taxes extremely, extremely cumbersome here in the US. — BitconnectCarlos

Incorrect.