Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it is just the old pecking order thingy that you can find in all of nature, especially among higher animals. You are born into a society, and they protect you in exchange for you behaving according to their rules. Same with chimps etc.
I suppose the reason why it works that way is that the society one is born into does not need a given individual, whereas the individual needs society. A society could expel an individual, which in nature usually means the end of the individual.
I understand that modern humans with their wish for utmost freedom of choice are not thrilled by the idea of others telling them what to do and what not to do. But I don't see any way to change that. There is politics, of course, but it only allows for minor adaptations of the major pillars of human society. And those pillars are more or less the same around the world, which makes emigration kind of useless in most cases.
If you don't want to pay taxes, you could in theory move to some Arab gulf state, but there you will have to endure other restrictions of your freedom, in my opinion more severe restrictions.
Ideally as you grow up you automatically absorb the rules of the society you are born into. That is how it works with the vast majority of people. Only with a tiny minority does it not work for whatever reason.
I think it is just the old pecking order thingy that you can find in all of nature, especially among higher animals. You are born into a society, and they protect you in exchange for you behaving according to their rules. Same with chimps etc.
I suppose the reason why it works that way is that the society one is born into does not need a given individual, whereas the individual needs society. A society could expel an individual, which in nature usually means the end of the individual.
I understand that modern humans with their wish for utmost freedom of choice are not thrilled by the idea of others telling them what to do and what not to do. But I don't see any way to change that. There is politics, of course, but it only allows for minor adaptations of the major pillars of human society. And those pillars are more or less the same around the world, which makes emigration kind of useless in most cases.
If you don't want to pay taxes, you could in theory move to some Arab gulf state, but there you will have to endure other restrictions of your freedom, in my opinion more severe restrictions.
Ideally as you grow up you automatically absorb the rules of the society you are born into. That is how it works with the vast majority of people. Only with a tiny minority does it not work for whatever reason.
I think there will always be some sort of hierarchy, but it's still possible to change the culture. There will still be leaders and followers, but the followers don't need to give the leader permission to violently control everybody. A leader can be someone you look to for guidance and who can take charge of a situation, but they're still an equal. If someone doesn't agree with them, the leader shouldn't be allowed to say "Too bad. I'm in charge and if you don't do as I say...(insert some threat of violence)."
Here's the thing to ponder...we don't threaten people with force in our daily lives because we know it's better to reason with people and respect their right to disagree with us (unless you're a sociopath or have other mental damage), but we have this designated group that's allowed to do it. The state is like an outlet for people to do what they normally would feel wrong about doing themselves.
I'll just do two quick scenarios based on an actual experience of mine:
Non-government version
6 roommates live together and 4 want a new TV. The other 2 are low on money or simply don't want to pay for a new TV when they already have a decent one. The "leader" of the house buys the TV anyway and asks everyone else to pay $120, but one (me) says no. They all try to convince the guy to just pay the $120, but he won't agree to it. They try to make a deal and allow him to only pay $75, and he still says no. They eventually pay for it themselves and say that if he decides to use the TV, he owes them money for it, which is a fair deal for both sides.
Government version
Same scenario, except they lock the guy in the basement for not paying for the TV.
The difference is that you do use and enjoy things the government provides (roads, schools, safety, healthcare, etc.), even if you may not realize it because you take them for granted. You can't live without benefiting from what the government provides.
The difference is that you do use and enjoy things the government provides (roads, schools, safety, healthcare, etc.), even if you may not realize it because you take them for granted. You can't live without benefiting from what the government provides.
All very true. The question is why can't a smaller more streamlined efficient government provide these same things?
Our Government was much smaller 50 years ago and it provided all these things and some would argue more effectively and for less.
Quantity seldom equates to quality.
The difference is that you do use and enjoy things the government provides (roads, schools, safety, healthcare, etc.), even if you may not realize it because you take them for granted. You can't live without benefiting from what the government provides.
But that's only because the government doesn't allow competition. If I had the option to NOT use the government services, I probably would. If I actually chose the government services and entered an agreement with them beforehand, I'd owe them whatever we agreed upon.
Also, I'm forced to pay for things I don't use anyway. I almost forgot about that part...
But you can never know if you will have to use them. And once you do, it would be unfair if you had not paid for them before. If everyone did that, the government could not plan and do anything, and society would turn into a jungle where only those lucky enough to be wealthy could afford to pay for stuff if and when they need it.
Why do Americans even complain? They pay much lower taxes compared to Scandinavians for instance.
But you can never know if you will have to use them. And once you do, it would be unfair if you had not paid for them before. If everyone did that, the government could not plan and do anything, and society would turn into a jungle where only those lucky enough to be wealthy could afford to pay for stuff if and when they need it.
Why do Americans even complain? They pay much lower taxes compared to Scandinavians for instance.
If a non-government organization did that, people would get very upset. "You owe us $X/month just in case you use our products at some point in your life".
I don't think there needs to be one central authority, as I've gone over in this thread and in others. Society doesn't need one small group to "run" it. Using my roommates example, no single roommate needed to rule over the rest by force. They were all held to the same standard of respecting each other's decisions and choices.
As far as people not being able to afford things, it definitely would benefit the poor overall to have competing organizations. The price would be driven down because people would go to the place that was the best value for them, and without taxation their income would almost double. Instead of having one big inefficient group take your money and decide what to do with it, you keep it all and spend how you wish. That's your right in the first place, actually. I do think that society would need to strongly value helping the poor, and they do. We wouldn't even have a welfare state if the majority didn't vote for it, but the welfare state hasn't done the job it was supposed to do anyway. It's made things worse by creating incentives to stay poor. (Side note - having wealth is only luck if you're born into a rich family. Most people need to develop skills and offer something of value to society to make money.)
The reason we complain is the principle of it all. If I'm a kid and my parents beat me three times a week, I won't stop complaining because they tell me the neighbor kid gets beat five times a week.
That is the difference, government is not just another service company. It is beyond the market.
It simply replaced kings and queens, and even further back alpha males. They are still the ones who decide what is best for us as a society, even if we elect them.
If there were no obligation to pay taxes, basically nobody would pay them voluntarily. And with the voluntarily paid taxes, in other words donations, nobody could rely on their amount as there could be huge fluctuations at any time. That is not enough to run a modern country. Not everyone can live on petro dollars like those infamous gulf states. Nor do people in the industrialized countries want to return to developing country status.
No presidential candidate is in favor of doing away with taxes. They just differ on the percentage to be paid
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
