If I do not pay my taxes I am subject to many penalties, up to and including jail time. If I do not pay a the federal or provincial sales tax on food I do not eat. If I do not pay property taxes I lose my home. Do you suppose I have a say in this? — NOS4A2

Provided you live in a democracy, you do have a say. Merely that you do not get what you want is not the same as not having a say.

Andrew Yang's proposal is for UBI to go to all and only 18-64 year olds. That makes no sense and is shockingly reactionary.

Bezos makes nearly 4k/SECOND. He gets UBI 1k/month.

An elderly person with total monthly income of only a few hundred dollars Social Security, or no Social Security at all, gets UBI 0/month. And bear in mind that Social Security is a retirement investment program to which the recipient contributed his or her entire working life.

But it's fair, because Bezos will get cut off when he turns 65, just like everyone else.

I'm thinking about selling up and moving to Portland. What do you think? Buy a house there, start a business. Send my kids to school. I was hoping to get your advice. — counterpunch

Which 'Portland' are you thinking of?

Provided you live in a democracy, you do have a say. Merely that you do not get what you want is not the same as not having a say.

The transfer of my wealth to the state occurs at the point of every single purchase I make. In which of these transactions do I get a say?

The transfer of my wealth to the state occurs at the point of every single purchase I make. In which of these transactions do I get a say? — NOS4A2

Technically VAT is paid by the store, they just add it to the price. And indirect taxes like VAT are trash and ought to be abolished except for specific goals.

Anyways you don't get a say for every single tax payment. Nor did I claim or allude to that in any way. You do get a say in government policy though, which is more than you get for any wealth not held by the government.

I assume by “a say in government policy” you mean I get to tick a box next to someone’s name once every few years, the effect of which is slim to nothing. I do get a say in the private arena, however, by accepting or refusing the terms of their contracts. I, too, am a part of this arena after all. If I don’t like the offer I can find one elsewhere and they can do the same in a reciprocal fashion.

In any case, private actors are not taking my wealth without my consent. Only the state has that sort of unmitigated power.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543934

I checked one of Yang's website. It says anyone over 18. But in an interview on Freakonimics today, he said 18-64. But I re-listened by going to a posted sound file of the Freakomics episode, and realize now that when he said 18-64 was in January 2019. So his proposal has changed.

I do get a say in the private arena, however, by accepting or refusing the terms of their contracts. I, too, am a part of this arena after all. If I don’t like the offer I can find one elsewhere and they can do the same in a reciprocal fashion. — NOS4A2

You can also evade the tax authorities and live in a cave. Theoretical options abound. But you must eat, have shelter, etc. So in a practical sense you are not free to decline any offer, just as you're not free to not pay taxes or refuse someone with a gun to your head.

In any case, private actors are not taking my wealth without my consent. — NOS4A2

Then you must be quite wealthy. Lots of people are less lucky then you are and don't really have the option to think about their consent.

You can also evade the tax authorities and live in a cave. Theoretical options abound. But you must eat, have shelter, etc. So in a practical sense you are not free to decline any offer, just as you're not free to not pay taxes or refuse someone with a gun to your head.

In the case of food and shelter, one can choose between a variety of options. If a loaf of bread is too expensive or too stale I can decline to purchase it and choose another. The fact that I must have food doesn’t mean that I must eat the first thing that’s offered to me, though that is probably not possible with the destitute and those trapped in command economies.

Then you must be quite wealthy. Lots of people are less lucky then you are and don't really have the option to think about their consent.

Well no, it’s just that I understand the basics of trade. Which private actors take your wealth without your consent, and how are they able to do it?

In the case of food and shelter, one can choose between a variety of options. If a loaf of bread is too expensive or too stale I can decline to purchase it and choose another. — NOS4A2

Yes, you may have "options" but that doesn't make spending the money in any way optional.

Well no, it’s just that I understand the basics of trade. Which private actors take your wealth without your consent, and how are they able to do it? — NOS4A2

The landlord, the train you take to work, the supermarket you get your basic foodstuffs from, whatever you have to pay for basic insurance. "Consent" here is purely a formality. The contracts are consensual only in a superficial way.

I am not persuaded. To me, willingly paying for goods and services are not the same as having my wealth coercively taken from at every transaction. If I refuse to buy from private hands I do not receive their service; if I refuse to buy from state hands I go to jail and have to pay anyways, and with interest. I fear the latter, not the former, and I am unable to see how one could say otherwise.

I'm thinking about selling up and moving to Portland. — counterpunch

Maine? At once both the place to wish for and to be careful about what you wish for. @csalisbury can be found there, try PMing him.

I am not persuaded. To me, willingly paying for goods and services are not the same as having my wealth coercively taken from at every transaction. If I refuse to buy from private hands I do not receive their service; if I refuse to buy from state hands I go to jail and have to pay anyways, and with interest. I fear the latter, not the former, and I am unable to see how one could say otherwise. — NOS4A2

You always face consequences for your decisions. How much those impact you depends on your circumstances. If you're well off and live a sheltered enough life to think that you could easily "go it alone", having relatively minor burdens like taxation might feel like the greatest evil. If you work in some sweatshop which pays you barely enough to rent and feed your family, your view on choices will likely be different.

I don't understand how one can arbitrarily "fear" the state, but not extend that same fear to anything else that wields similar power. It strikes me as magical thinking, where the state is some big dragon with extraordinary powers, and if we could only slay it, the problem would disappear. In reality the state is simply the current form that social organisation has taken, and if it were to go away, all the same powers would simply move to some other body. It's simply not plausible to run a technological civilisation on the basis of ad-hoc agreements of individuals. If all states disappeared tomorrow, the first to reconstitute itself would easily rule the world, by the simple metric of being able to marshall power beyond any individual.

Theft, robbery and forced labor are evils the last time I checked. If it is true that the impact of these consequences depend on your circumstances, and not on morals or principle, then it seems the circumstances that favor this sort of relationship is one of servility and obedience to authority, and not much else.

I personally know some people, none of whom were well off, that were born stateless, born in anarchy, and happened to have parents who believed they could "go it alone". Indeed, they did go it alone for decades, their lives consisting of mostly surfing and fishing, but state enforcers burned their houses to the ground because the government wanted to expand a provincial park. So it's just untrue that a sheltered life begets disdain for state meddling, theft and taxation.



No one wields similar power to the state, is my point, and I still do not understand how one can conflate state power with anything else. Perhaps you can explain it because no one seems to be able to move beyond simply repeating it. The state has the monopoly on violence, with military and civilian enforcement at its beck and call. It can defend its interests from domestic and foreign threats with violent force, with little accountability. The only vague comparison I can make between state and private power are organizations of the criminal variety, like the mafia.

@counterpunch

Maine? At once both the place to wish for and to be careful about what you wish for. csalisbury can be found there, try PMing him. — tim wood

I recently moved from Portland to the (cheaper) foothill wilds of the north, but, if it is portland, maine, I'd be down to answer any questions about what it's like there (from my limited perspective)

Theft, robbery and forced labor are evils — NOS4A2

Theft and robbery rely on a distribution of goods sanctioned by some higher authority.

If it is true that the impact of these consequences depend on your circumstances, and not on morals or principle, then it seems the circumstances that favor this sort of relationship is one of servility and obedience to authority, and not much else. — NOS4A2

"People who like the state are servile and obedient". Yes, nice ad-hom.

I personally know some people, none of whom were well off, that were born stateless, born in anarchy, and happened to have parents who believed they could "go it alone". Indeed, they did go it alone for decades, their lives consisting of mostly surfing and fishing, but state enforcers burned their houses to the ground because the government wanted to expand a provincial park. So it's just untrue that a sheltered life begets disdain for state meddling, theft and taxation. — NOS4A2

And they'd have died of a simple infection if there wasn't a society behind their idyll that they could rely on. I don't begrudge people who want to live alternative lifestyles like that one their place. In fact I think we can often learn a lot about what really matters from folks like these. But let's not kid ourselves into believing that a population of 11 Billion (projected) can live a similar lifestyle and survive very long.

No one wields similar power to the state, is my point, and I still do not understand how one can conflate state power with anything else. — NOS4A2

That's because states exist, and they already have the power. No-one can take it because it's taken. But if it wasn't taken, it would be.

We can argue about how much power really large corporations have. It's not as visible in developed countries, but in e.g. south america going against the interests of some large corporation can be a death sentence, no state involved (though paid off to look the other way).

Perhaps you can explain it because no one seems to be able to move beyond simply repeating it. The state has the monopoly on violence, with military and civilian enforcement at its beck and call. It can defend its interests from domestic and foreign threats with violent force, with little accountability. — NOS4A2

Very simply, the explanation for why the state has so much power is that more powerful states were more successful, mostly due to their improved ability to project force. A tribally organised people can deploy a vastly bigger proportion of their adult male population as fighters compared to some loosely organised bands. A kingdom still more. A centralized nation state even more. Once state centralisation started, the fiscal power of the state became paramount. China was a huge empire, but it only had tax revenues around 1-2% of GDP. At the same time, European nation states had several times that amount. That was still only a few percent, not enough to fund public schools or hospitals, but enough to finance armies to conquer the world.

The only really exception to this trend has been the invention of the social state, when states went from around 10% of GDP in tax revenue to above 40% not for war, but to finance a vast social state, which resulted in the most prosperous period of human history.

But, long story short, abandoning the state is a bit like turning all your swords into ploughs. Good idea, but it only works if everyone does it, or else you're going to have a really bad time once the other people with the swords show up. Dismantling the state would just mean someone else will take those powers, and there won't be centuries of custom and institutions limiting their usage of those powers.