Must be tough hearing a spade being called a spade all the time, huh?

Taxes are literally taken from you at gunpoint. I am against taking things from other people at gunpoint, whether it's done by a common thug or a state.

I'm not against voluntarily contributing to one's community. — Tzeentch

Against taxes then, more or less like @NOS4A2. (The latter ain't taxes in this context.)

Communism proposes the absence of a state and self-governance. That doesn't imply taxes. — Tzeentch

In principle at least, you don't own a company under communism, whether you run/started it or not. Everyone ("the communist state") does, and gains/losses are a state thing if you will.

There is no state in the end stage of communism. No state to own things, no state to levy taxes. No state, period.

Without the crucial step of the almighty state abolishing itself, communism is literally just totalitarianism, and sadly previous attempts at reaching the stateless utopia have stranded in exactly that situation.

Had it not been for the obvious flaw in this plan, I would have been a communist myself.

No state, imagine that!

Conflating selfishness and individualism is a collectivist canard as old as the word itself, and flips the dictum that man is a social animal on its head. I can’t take anyone who repeats it that seriously because it posits a glaringly false anthropology, that man is a fundamentally anti-social animal—as soon as individuals were set free from the bonds of subordination and are afforded rights they’d become hermits and care only for themselves. — NOS4A2

No, but Dunbar's number also predicts that you cannot scale society based on such principles larger than a very low number. Even if Dunbar's number has been criticized regarding the actual size that we are cognitively limited to handle, it will never be able to include an entire large society the size of a nation or global ideal.

And I'm not even talking about such selfishness, I've mentioned numerous times that individualism leads to a clustered society in which people cluster into smaller groups with similar-minded ideals. This has already happened to some degree and it is not a good foundation in society to be that fragmented, especially if there are intentions to solve large-scale problems, and especially if those problems come with conflicting ideas among the people. The selfishness comes from these groups polarizing themselves against others and not caring for anyone else than that group. If you are unable to see these things in society, I can't help you, but they're a glaring result of all of this.

I think you are deliberately straw-man what I said down to only having to do with individual "selfishness", but that's just true for some people in such a society, the rest are selfish through the group that they clustered to.

It was the conservatives and royalists who invented the term and the communists, socialists, and fascists that keep using it with this meaning today. Consequently it was collectivists who historically stood in opposition to freedom, human rights, individual worth, and human dignity. Apparently this meaning persists on philosophy forums. — NOS4A2

And here you simplify everything into a polarized position in which anyone who speaks critically of the term gets thrown into the communist fascist camps. This is just low quality.

Instead of actually caring for the nuances that I wrote about. As you would have seen, I'm criticizing both communism and individualism, I don't defend either and I think both lead to collapse.

Apparently, you don't seem interested in engaging in another way than throwing around these strawmen. Why? I don't know, but ignoring the negatives of individualism is just bad as ignoring the negatives of communism.

What it really boils down to is a rejection of the idea of democracy and a denial of human beings as social creatures. And this is why those who profess to care about “individual rights” end defending corporations, billionaires, Republicans, Donald Trump, neoliberalism, etc.

When a set of beliefs lead to those absurd and embarrassing outcomes, trying to engage it rationally is as productive as talking to a creationist about science. — Mikie

Exactly. There's little philosophical value to be found in someone who points to an ism and does everything in their power to try and paint it as a perfect utopia, rejecting any notion of any negative sides to it. What I see is mostly just a rejection of basic psychology from people defending it without any critical afterthought.

Yet. But they are heading rightward, and all the way far right: xenophobia, isolationism, repression, authoritarian conformity. If they fall in lock-step with the anti-vaxx, climate-change-denying faction, they won't take long to fall. — Vera Mont

This is a global trend as a result of the clusterization of people through individualistic culture. When there's less of an overall collective sense of culture and people are blasted with an overload of conflicting information while having a deeply rooted ideology of individualism, they tend to gravitate toward groups that position themselves within similar ideas, a result of extreme confirmation bias.

I see Scandinavian nations as being far less prone to nationalizing these extremist ideas and there is still a large majority that openly and clearly opposes it. With that said, it's important to stay vigilant and not sleep on the watch and wake up with these nutjobs running the show.

What's any of it to do with communism? — Vera Mont

Nothing, but the people still believe in it. The point is that they were so deeply programmed by that society that they still embrace it even if it's not even around anymore.

Sez who? And what does it mean? That anyone who intends to do good is damned? God hates good intentions and Satan likes them? So, if you want to be saved, plan to do evil? — Vera Mont

It's a proverb.

When people aren't evaluating their ideas and ideologies, believing in utopian dreams, and thinking they have solved pain and misery, they usually install a system that unintentionally creates hell on earth because they ignored looking at the downsides of their "good idea".

Where does this "singular direction" idea come from? Who said a nation needs to go anywhere? — Vera Mont

From the leaders of that nation, or from the revolutionary manifest created by those who conducted a revolution, or whatever became the foundation for that society. Or it's just the end result set in place by the new leaders trying to formulate a new system after eradicating the old. Ever read Animal Farm?

And of course a nation needs to "go somewhere". How do you expand society when the population grows? How does the nation solve any large-scale problem? All of that comes out of society collectively or through an elite, figuring out solutions, and that ends up forming societal culture. If society is built upon everyone needing to contribute and be part of a whole and have a singular momentum so that things actually get done and not just go to chaos, you have to force people in that direction.

How do you form a large-scale collective society where everyone contributes to the same thing and cause if there aren't any agreed-upon guidelines?

What's wrong with just living the best way you can and making decisions as circumstances demand? The majority can usually agree on what to do in a flood or fire; they usually know who on the scene is best qualified to organize the effort. — Vera Mont

Of course, that works for a small-scale society. How do you manage that with the complexities of a nation of around the size of 100 million people? Then there aren't just floods or fires to fix anymore, but how to manage food supply and production, building infrastructure and housing. What happens if some people want more? If they start to accumulate resources and start to disagree with how things are run?

It quickly tumbles down into chaos. And the solution is either a system that incorporates individual thinking together with collective action... or a collective goal where everyone is forced to comply.

What leaders? Whose vision? Why shouldn't both change as circumstances change? Comunal life doesn't requite stasis; it merely requires the shared ownership of resources. Beyond that, it can be based on religious principles, or utilitarian ones, or secular humanist; it can be agrarian or urban, highly technological or primitive, paternal or maternal, hedonistic or puritanical, segregated by sex or one big extended family. Why would you expect it to be rigid or authoritarian? — Vera Mont

How do you practically apply all of that into a system that functions together with human psychology? The basis for that communal life that you propose is exactly the kind of stasis you say wouldn't exist. Society doesn't function with such foundations for long before people start to question and think of new ideals that start to conflict with the old. Communal life requires the entire community to be on the same page. It works well for a small-scale society but you cannot possibly incorporate that on a large scale without authoritarian power systems starting to form in order to keep everything and everyone in line with the rest of the community.

People aren't mindless husks that will comply with everything the community decides and the larger the society, the less possible it is to keep everyone on the same page. It is inevitable that such a society breaks down when fractions and groups start to form around different ideas that they believe are better than the status quo.

What I'm asking is, how do you apply a decided community ideal to 100 million people and have everyone agreeing with that over the course of decades or hundreds of years? What happens when some people disagree with the people who organize different parts of society? What happens when large groups want more than the standards they have? Because if some people have more than others, do you think people with less will just accept that and feel it's fair? Some people will eventually have more than others because people are different and have different skills and capabilities.

It doesn't require a lot of deduction to see how such a system crumbles and falls apart very soon. And the only way for it not to is to force the people into complying with it. That is exactly what has happened in every communist society ever.

, that wasn't quite the point. Maybe then switch to the term "commune" (or "collective" or something) instead of "state"?

Conflating selfishness and individualism is a collectivist canard as old as the word itself, and flips the dictum that man is a social animal on its head. I can’t take anyone who repeats it that seriously because it posits a glaringly false anthropology, that man is a fundamentally anti-social animal—as soon as individuals were set free from the bonds of subordination and are afforded rights they’d become hermits and care only for themselves. — NOS4A2

Well said.

↪Tzeentch, that wasn't quite the point. Maybe then switch to the term "commune" (or "collective" or something) instead of "state"? — jorndoe

There would be no such thing in any offical capacity, or it would just be the state under a different name, and thus totalitarianism under a different name.

What communism proposes as its end stage is quite idyllic. No one possesses anything. The "commune" doesn't possess anything. The leaders don't possess anything, no secret state that we now call a commune that continues to levy taxes, etc.

People living together in harmony, producing what they can and taking what they need.

I can show any number of quotes from socialists, fascists, conservatives, communists, throughout the ages about the atomization theory of individualism, and the resulting fear of selfishness, hermitic lifestyle, and the anarchy that is supposed to result because of it. But again all of it rests on a false anthropology.

All of it was designed in service to the power of tradition, religion, the monarchy, the state, all of which imply subordination and obedience. So I do not care about your nuance when I can see what it is designed to protect: the sanctity and prestige of one or more collectivist and anti-social institutions. Collapse of what? The state? The church? The monarchy? No doubt it’s some amorphous institution set over and above the value of human beings qua human beings.

Hmm ...?

Anyway

Against taxes then, more or less like @NOS4A2. — yes?

yes

Are you for or against appropriating the fruits of someone’s labor?

, let me put it this way, I don't mind paying taxes. Otherwise I'd vote for the anarchists.

I can appreciate that. It was a loaded question, anyways.

Taxes are literally taken from you at gunpoint — Tzeentch

In almost 60 years of paying various taxes, I never saw a gun. I have, however, driven on literal highways, sent literal packages through the mail, travelled in an airplane that was safely guided to the ground by a literal air traffic controller, walked on sidewalks cleared of garbage and snow by literal removal crews and received treatments in very literal hospitals. No literal guns.

Of course, I would be very happy to abolish money altogether and share out the contributions and benefits equally. The major obstacle to that is calculating fair shares, and the major difficulty is the transition.

In almost 60 years of paying various taxes, I never saw a gun. — Vera Mont

There are literal guns stashed in the police office down the road, and they will literally be used if you don't want to go to jail after not to paying your taxes.

Let me emphasize that taxation is completely dependent upon very real and literal threats of violence.

One of the greatest conceits is that only man in his government form can lay asphalt, deliver packages, pick up garbage, or care for the sick. Here in the great white north we have abandoned state-controlled air traffic control, one of the first countries to do so. It's one less thing I am forced to pay for even when I don't use it.

Lovecraft invented an alien who doesn't understand the earth's devotion to individual forms, so it freely combines the patterns of the living things it comes across on earth. It's the subject of The Color Out of Space, The Thing, and Annihilation, all of which of are beyond horrifying. Individuality is actually basic. We just take it for granted until we're presented with the extreme alternative.

One of the greatest conceits is that only man in his government form can lay asphalt, deliver packages, pick up garbage, or care for the sick. Here in the great white north we have abandoned state-controlled air traffic control, one of the first countries to do so. It's one less thing I am forced to pay for even when I don't use it. — NOS4A2

And when you do you use those privatized services, you pay more for less. This also holds true for the public services that have been privatized but still paid for though government taxation.

After 99% of the population is killed off in the closing panic, you'll have to hack your own path through the devastated landscape and depend on nobody. Until then, there are too many of us to do everything independently. So we have elected governments or some other kind - military, corporate, theocratic, oligarchic. Any kind will demand contributions from the citizenry and collect by some means and some method.

So thinking taxes are taken at “literal gun point” is calling a spade, eh?

:up:

, well, you're not going to get executed for not paying taxes. :D

In the US you could (conditionally) get 5 years behind bars, according to H&R Block; apparently something similar in Canada. (I'm no expert on this stuff though. Don't we have some lawyers in the forum?)

In the US, it seems more likely you'd be gunned down in a school shooting.

But, if it's such an issue, you could go to the Caymans (or find a good spot in Baffin Bay and do your own thing) or something? Isn't that the sort of thing you're suggesting?

By the way, Somalia has no taxes, but I wouldn't recommend going there. (Hint?)

Those whining about taxes never whine about corporate exploitation. Why? It’s all justified by the pathetic “working for a company is voluntary.”

Well, living in a society is voluntary too. You can leave the country if you don’t like how its run or truly don’t like having to pay for a service you may not use. You know, just like you can “leave the company” if you don’t like their policies.

If these so-called individualists had any integrity whatsoever, the first thing they’d be attacking is private tyrannies. But like well trained dogs, they defend them to the bitter end.

Again, all of this comes out of the arguments in favor of slavery. And it leads to decisions like voting for Donald Trump, siding with gun manufacturers over children’s lives, extreme abortion restrictions, etc. In other words: it’s hifalutin bullshit to justify a very clear agenda.

Don’t look for consistency.

In the US, it seems more likely you'd be gunned down in a school shooting. — jorndoe

:blush: :up:

Indeed. But that’s not a gun killing you — it’s freedom.

In the US you could (conditionally) get 5 years behind bars, ... — jorndoe

That's assuming you would start paying taxes after the sentence.

If you don't pay taxes, you'll spend your life behind bars.

By the way, Somalia has no taxes, but I wouldn't recommend going there. (Hint?) — jorndoe

I suppose the next time someone brings up gun violence in the US I will recommend them to immigrate somewhere with stricter gun laws. :snicker:

I can show any number of quotes from socialists, fascists, conservatives, communists, throughout the ages about the atomization theory of individualism, and the resulting fear of selfishness, hermitic lifestyle, and the anarchy that is supposed to result because of it. But again all of it rests on a false anthropology. — NOS4A2

So you are basically just engaging in a debate through a guilt by association fallacy, rather than having a discussion?

So I do not care about your nuance when I can see what it is designed to protect: the sanctity and prestige of one or more collectivist and anti-social institutions. — NOS4A2

How am I protecting that when, if you even cared to read more or think about what I actually write, you would see that my criticism of pure collectivism/communism is far more strong than that against individualism? I'm just not an individualist evangelist like you seem to be in this discussion because ignoring the negative sides and the psychological fallout of such absolutism is just as biased as anything you are criticizing. That smells more of red scare than any kind of rational perspective on this topic.

If you are nothing more than a sock puppet for your ideology, then you're not able to have a philosophical discussion and will just do what you're doing right now, "guilt by association" to position yourself above others in order to make the appearance of having some higher moral ground. It's rather transparent and I don't think I'm alone in rolling my eyes toward this approach of yours.

Collapse of what? The state? The church? The monarchy? No doubt it’s some amorphous institution set over and above the value of human beings qua human beings. — NOS4A2

Why are you constantly just inventing loaded interpretations about what you believe others mean? Are you unable to engage in a discussion without constantly trying to bully your way through others' arguments? That kind of writing is just petty. You don't even try to get what others are writing before you slam on a negative value trying to ridicule it. Why should anyone care to engage with you if this is your level of engagement?

We are talking about the collapse of both a state and the social culture around it. When the wall fell, it wasn't just the state that collapsed, it was also the culture it had formed. By "collapse" I mean that the general overarching guiding ideals, politics, and mentality changed, it doesn't mean everyone flipped the page, only that the overall politics and culture changed form and start to move in another direction than the previous. Most large societies, when they fall or collapse, don't end up as a clean slate, the old slowly rots away or lingers and perhaps influences the new direction. This is clear in how modern Russia looks, in which there are echoes of Soviet all over the place and in many people's values and behaviors.

But that would have been clear to you if you actually read more than skimming through in order to jump on the defense and label others to simulate some moral superiority for yourself.

The question is, what do you defend? Please describe, in your words, individualism in the complexity that incorporates human psychology and sociology. No one is questioning the humanistic and moral importance of liberty for the individual. That is humanism. Individualism, on the other hand, with its emphasis on prioritizing the individual above all else, can have societal and psychological consequences, some of which may be negative. This perspective often centers on the ego and disregards the potential adverse effects of such an approach, including the impacts on people's psychology and group dynamics that may arise as a result.

And when you do you use those privatized services, you pay more for less. This also holds true for the public services that have been privatized but still paid for though government taxation. — Vera Mont

Imagine a world where everything is privatized and nothing is taxed.

You have your own house and the land it was built on, and you paid for it. You will pay a fortune for the water you get, or you can have your own well. So now everyone has their own house, land, and well... or not since that's not possible for anyone and that's a hard life. So you live in an apartment instead because that's more convenient, but as a collective living there, you need to pay a share to finance the maintenance for the entire building. Oh no, that's a commune, that's collectivism, get out of there... back to the house.

So you have the house and your land, and then you want to go somewhere to buy food. You have to pay for walking on that road, though, so you pay a monthly fee or per walk, as long as you don't own the road. If so, you need enforcers to keep track of everyone walking on that road so you can get an income for that, but you also need to pay those enforcers... better to just have someone else own it and you pay for it, that should be cheaper in the long run. So you get to the farmer and you pay for food, a lot more than when there were taxes since the complexity of producing food requires enormous costs when subsidies are gone, and all that needs to be paid for.

Walking home, you need to pay again, more this time since the owner of the road also feels the pain of paying much for their own living, maybe the enforcers have driven up the costs, so they need to charge more. Now you need to charge more for what you do for a living, but they can't pay you before increasing their own income as they also have roads to walk on.

You try to produce as much as you can yourself, growing food, using solar panels, and managing the well and human waste. It's a lot of work, so much so that you don't have the time to do work to earn a living to be able to pay for services you actually need. One day you don't have enough to walk the road, the cost is too high, and you haven't been able to make your monthly income. Enforcers guard the road to make sure you actually pay for walking on it since you tried to sneak out one time when you were desperate.

And the one thing you hope in all this stress is that you don't fall off the ladder while fixing the roof. If that were to happen, you wouldn't be able to afford your health since you can't work to earn enough to get the help you need.

If only there were some form of generalized pay so that the economy balances out. To make it easier to just do day-to-day stuff without being at risk all the time.


:shade:

If people were to add up all the things in society that are financed through taxes, it becomes clear just how much things actually cost, as well as how impractical modern life is without taxes. It's also easy to see how fragile such an economy is since there's no societal cash flow balancing trade and transactions. But the most glaring problem is how ignorant such a society would be towards those less fortunate, those who stroke bad luck and fell of the ladder. There's no incentive to help them and there are no good broad examples of automated help coming out of empathy from the rich, which basically means, letting the poor die.

The most interesting aspect in all of this is that nations with low corruption and high taxes generally puts them at the top of the list of best places to live in the world. Based on statistics from the people's perception of life living there. Scandinavian nations frequently top it and then there's the case of the rapid improvement of life in the US in the 40s and 50s when taxation reached a marginal income tax of 94%.

Maybe the problem is that taxation is viewed as part of your own money when you get paid. But instead of that, maybe view the money kept as the actual income and taxation as the cash flow that circulates a nation keeping it healthy.

The problem with taxes has never been the percentage of income, it has always been about corruption and misuse. In highly corrupted nations, taxes go straight into the pockets of some rich elite or are mishandled by stupid politicians who don't know how to handle a nation with care for the people. But those problems seem to get mixed into the general idea of taxes itself. Like it's part of the whole deal, which it clearly isn't.

How can taxes be a problem if we remove corruption and mishandling? Shouldn't the question about taxes instead be about how to best care for that cash flow so that it is handled with care and never flows into corruption? It's almost like the polarization of the arguments on taxes boils down to, "are you for or against taxes?". I don't think anyone with any insight into how modern economies and societies work would agree that no taxes is a functioning society that cares for the people's well-being. But every time the subject is brought up, people start to fight about whether or not to have them, which is just showing how naive most perspectives are on this subject. Look at the evidence and how economies work, and look at which nations score best at their population's impression of life quality. It is quite clear where the truth leans towards.

If you don't pay taxes, you'll spend your life behind bars. — Tzeentch

Describe a society without taxes, in which you don't have to worry about spending your life behind bars because of not paying taxes. You are now free, how do you live in this society? You are born into the world having $100 000 as a starting sum when moving from home, how does that life look like? Now, you're not as fortunate and start your life with $0, how do you live?

Why is taxation the hot topic here? In a communist society there would be no state, no money, no social classes--and no taxation.

Describe a society without taxes — Christoffer

So one answer is: communism.

So one answer is: communism. — Jamal

Or a privatized hell, which was my point as the argument against taxes usually comes from those who want to be left alone while still being part of society.

The other answer, as you say, is communism.

:up:

Yes, communism is merely the best taxless society among alternatives.

Describe a society without taxes, ... — Christoffer

Sure, but before I do, do you agree that taxation is essentially taking people's things at gunpoint?

If we can't agree on that, there's no point in discussing an alternative because you don't seem persuaded that there is any necessity for an alternative.