The Ultimate Goal

[Starlight]

I find it funny that someone from New Zealand thinks he knows more about US politics and tax laws than the actual US citizens.

I don't know if you're realized this... but other countries have discovered the basic concept of taxation too. True fact.

Here we have both an income tax and a sales tax. I'm familiar with both. Stop projecting your own ignorance onto the rest of the world.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't know if you're realized this... but other countries have discovered the basic concept of taxation too. True fact.

Here we have both an income tax and a sales tax. I'm familiar with both. Stop projecting your own ignorance onto the rest of the world.

Irony at its finest.

[Truthseeker]

Are we to assume that the State will do more good than bad? Now if all the resources that the State could command were voluntarily yielded by the citizens to it, one might think that they, believing that indeed the State will do more good than bad, would willingly give up a large chunk of their resources, if not all. Why then do we need coercive bureaucracies like the IRS?

[Starlight]

Are we to assume that the State will do more good than bad? Now if all the resources that the State could command were voluntarily yielded by the citizens to it, one might think that they, believing that indeed the State will do more good than bad, would willingly give up a large chunk of their resources, if not all. Why then do we need coercive bureaucracies like the IRS?

The prisoners' dilemma would kick in: Individuals would think that "if I keep my money for myself but everyone else gives their resources to the government, then I'll be better off", so you'd get people increasingly opting out. So instead society as a whole has to voluntarily decide what is going to go to the State and then enforce those rules. And that's what our democratic system does.

Most Western democracies have settled at a tax ratio of about 1/3rd going to the government in taxes, and 2/3rds staying with private individuals, suggesting that most people in the Western world think that it's worthwhile to have both private property and centralized planning, and that it leads to a sensible outcome if individuals get twice as much to spend for themselves as what goes to the government.

[Truthseeker]

The prisoners' dilemma would kick in: Individuals would think that "if I keep my money for myself but everyone else gives their resources to the government, then I'll be better off", so you'd get people increasingly opting out. So instead society as a whole has to voluntarily decide what is going to go to the State and then enforce those rules. And that's what our democratic system does.

I'm not sure what you have in mind regarding "our democratic system," but I suspect you are fantasizing. For one thing, elections have been rigged or limited (often by eliminating or hobbling candidates like Ron Paul). The Republicans are not much different from the Democrats--both parties are about equally Statist.

Indeed we will have free riders, but the State does not really eliminate them, it creates opportunities for people to free-ride or something just as reprehensible. Perhaps you have heard the term "feeding at the public trough."

Most Western democracies have settled at a tax ratio of about 1/3rd going to the government in taxes, and 2/3rds staying with private individuals, suggesting that most people in the Western world think that it's worthwhile to have both private property and centralized planning, and that it leads to a sensible outcome if individuals get twice as much to spend for themselves as what goes to the government.

No, you should not ignore the debts governments around the world have racked up for years.


I still think we'd be better off without the State, it's too expensive. For one thing, all those massive bureaucracies sucking up money and spitting out red tape.

[Starlight]

I'm not sure what you have in mind regarding "our democratic system," but I suspect you are fantasizing. For one thing, elections have been rigged or limited (often by eliminating or hobbling candidates like Ron Paul). The Republicans are not much different from the Democrats--both parties are about equally Statist.

If democracy in the US is broken (which I would agree it is), then you should fix it. I recommend getting money out of politics via a constitutional amendment, and get States to change their voting system for congress and president to STV* (aka Choice Voting or FairVote) or any other proportional voting system in order to get more proportional representation and go beyond the two-party system. Here in NZ, we changed our voting system 20 years ago from winner-take-all to a proportional system, and our number of political parties has gone from 2 to 7 as a direct result.

Fixing your democracy would seem easier than trying for pie-in-the-sky alternatives like voluntary taxation which are simply never ever ever going to happen.

* In STV, which is the system I'd recommend (it's used here for some local council elections), voters number their preferred candidates 1, 2, 3 etc rather than simply ticking their preferred one. For congress, the existing electorates would ideally get combined into bigger electorates with multiple winners (total number of politicians is unchanged), and any electorate would then have 2-5 congresspeople representing it, who would be elected proportionally with people's preferences due to the maths of how STV works.

No, you should not ignore the debts governments around the world have racked up for years.

I think you overstate the problem. There's a few countries that have massive debts as a result of individual issues... Greece had serious corruption problems where it misused all it's money, and the US just can't stop going to war and insists on paying private companies massive prices for healthcare and has massive tax-evasion issues. Not everyone's as terrible at balancing their budgets as Greece and the US... prior to 2008 government debt here was basically zero - there was no long-run racking up of debt happening.

I still think we'd be better off without the State, it's too expensive. For one thing, all those massive bureaucracies sucking up money and spitting out red tape.

Dunno what fantasy world you're living in, but in the real world the State often gets things done cheaper than private companies. Take a look at medical costs for example - here total medical costs are about 2.5 times less than the US because the government runs all the healthcare. Private industry is about making profit, and profit for the shareholders costs money for the customers.

[Cow Poke]

If democracy in the US is broken (which I would agree it is), then you should fix it.

Unfortunately, this is pretty much asking the foxes to amend the manner in which they guard the hen house.

[Starlight]

Unfortunately, this is pretty much asking the foxes to amend the manner in which they guard the hen house.

Not necessarily, because the major place where your democracy has broken down is at the federal level, and a lot of the State-level government is still semi-functional. The fixes can be enacted at the state level: The states themselves have direct control of the process by which they elect congressmen and electoral college representatives for President, so it is up to the state governments to pass fixes for those. Any single state could tomorrow enact a law meaning that they elected their congresspeople by an STV voting system or some other proportional kind of voting system, that would open the door to independent candidates and 3rd parties to represent that state. (Of course, it would be more sensible if the state themselves changed their own state election of politicians to a proportional voting system - either STV or MMP would seem sensible choices for voting for state politicians - MMP is a better choice if you think your voters are relatively uninformed about individual politicians but do want more than 2 parties and just want to be able to vote for a party like Libertarian or Green etc, whereas STV is a better choice if a lot of voters are informed about who individual politicians are and want to have fine-grain control of which individual politicians are representing the party they are voting for.) The states are also capable of passing a constitutional amendment to limit the influence of money on politics.

Currently the states are two thirds of the way towards changing the presidential election to be the result of a national popular vote rather than being about winning the swing states. And they are one-fifth of the way towards passing a constitutional amendment to limit money in politics. Currently STV voting systems have been introduced in several cities for local elections, but no states have yet introduced them for federal elections.

Changing the presidential election to be a preferential election, in order to give 3rd-parties a chance and mean that voting for them didn't steal votes from other candidates would be a lot more complicated to accomplish (and may not be able to be done at the state level). But I don't see much point of making that change under congress itself has been changed: Getting an independent president is a bit strange if congress itself is still locked into a 2-party system. So that's the last change that needs to be made, not the first - for the moment your Ron Pauls and Ralph Naders just can't happen.

[Cow Poke]

Not necessarily, because the major place where your democracy has broken down is at the federal level, and a lot of the State-level government is still semi-functional. The fixes can be enacted at the state level: The states themselves have direct control of the process by which they elect congressmen and electoral college representatives for President...

You obviously have no clue how the system actually works.

[Truthseeker]

If democracy in the US is broken (which I would agree it is), then you should fix it.

Democracy is not good. Direct democracy at the local level is the best kind of State, but then we need to get rid of the nation-level governments and the province/state/whatever-level governments. No government should be bigger than county-level in some cases.

Fixing your democracy would seem easier than trying for pie-in-the-sky alternatives like voluntary taxation which are simply never ever ever going to happen.

"Voluntary taxation" is a contradiction in terms. How about "voluntary contributions"--like contributions to the local church?

Dunno what fantasy world you're living in, but in the real world the State often gets things done cheaper than private companies. Take a look at medical costs for example - here total medical costs are about 2.5 times less than the US because the government runs all the healthcare. Private industry is about making profit, and profit for the shareholders costs money for the customers.

Quality should be comparable when comparing two systems, e.g., the free market approach v. New Zealand's system. Quality takes money to maintain. And the buyer should have some choice.