Philosophy Now Forum

TLDR; The government, i.e. the ruling mafia, will tax according to taxability which is the inverse of taxation elasticity. All talk about "fairness" in taxation is just ideological propaganda. Taxation has never had anything to do with "fairness" and never will.

Taxability is the inverse of taxation elasticity.

How much does taxation revenue increase or decrease when you increase the taxation burden?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

In economics, the Laffer curve illustrates a theoretical relationship between rates of taxation and the resulting levels of the government's tax revenue.

The shape of the curve is a function of taxable income elasticity—i.e., taxable income changes in response to changes in the rate of taxation. As popularized by supply-side economist Arthur Laffer, the curve is typically represented as a graph that starts at 0% tax with zero revenue, rises to a maximum rate of revenue at an intermediate rate of taxation, and then falls again to zero revenue at a 100% tax rate.



The basic concept was not new; Laffer himself notes antecedents in the writings of the 14th-century social philosopher Ibn Khaldun and others.[7] Laffer states that he did not invent the concept, citing numerous antecedents, including the Muqaddimah by 14th-century Islamic scholar Ibn Khaldun,[7][8] John Maynard Keynes[7] and Adam Smith.[9] Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury from 1921 to 1932, articulated a similar policy idea in 1924.[10]

The ruling mafia has an infinite need for tax revenue. The only thing that stops the ruling mafia from collecting more tax, is your taxation elasticity. It is easy to understand why the ruling mafia will never seek to "tax the rich". The ruling mafia will always seek to tax according to taxation elasticity, while the rich are smart enough to keep increasing their own taxation elasticity.

Mainstream ideological propaganda seeks to reduce your taxation elasticity by encouraging you to be a so-called "law-abiding tax-paying citizen" and to voluntarily pay tax. It is never in your interest to believe this propaganda. It is never in your interest to believe that paying taxes would be a moral obligation. It is not a moral obligation. It is at most a practical obligation resulting from low taxation elasticity. The rich are smart enough not to believe mainstream ideological propaganda.

If you do not push back on taxation, then taxation will only only go up.

In general, mainstream propaganda never advocates anything that is in your interest. It always advocates ideologies that are in the interest of the ruling mafia. Mainstream propaganda will also seek to shit talk what is against the interests of the ruling mafia. A good example is how mainstream media incessantly shit talk Bitcoin. They do not like Bitcoin because it increases taxation elasticity. It is always in your interest to distrust the mouthpieces of the ruling regime.

JFK's quote "Ask not what your country can do for you but what can you do for your country." is utterly manipulative and exploitative. It should be understood as "Ask not what your ruling mafia can do for you but what can you do for your ruling mafia."

JFK simply made an imbecile attempt at bamboozling people who happened to be even more imbecile than JFK himself.

tax the rich... you earned $0.02... you're rich! pay your 50%

utopia

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 4:57 pm tax the rich... you earned $0.02... you're rich! pay your 50%

utopia

-Imp

Yep, $0.02/attosecond is way too much money to keep all to yourself.

godelian wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 6:09 am TLDR; The government, i.e. the ruling mafia, will tax according to taxability which is the inverse of taxation elasticity. All talk about "fairness" in taxation is just ideological propaganda. Taxation has never had anything to do with "fairness" and never will.

Taxability is the inverse of taxation elasticity.

How much does taxation revenue increase or decrease when you increase the taxation burden?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

In economics, the Laffer curve illustrates a theoretical relationship between rates of taxation and the resulting levels of the government's tax revenue.

The shape of the curve is a function of taxable income elasticity—i.e., taxable income changes in response to changes in the rate of taxation. As popularized by supply-side economist Arthur Laffer, the curve is typically represented as a graph that starts at 0% tax with zero revenue, rises to a maximum rate of revenue at an intermediate rate of taxation, and then falls again to zero revenue at a 100% tax rate.



The basic concept was not new; Laffer himself notes antecedents in the writings of the 14th-century social philosopher Ibn Khaldun and others.[7] Laffer states that he did not invent the concept, citing numerous antecedents, including the Muqaddimah by 14th-century Islamic scholar Ibn Khaldun,[7][8] John Maynard Keynes[7] and Adam Smith.[9] Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury from 1921 to 1932, articulated a similar policy idea in 1924.[10]

The ruling mafia has an infinite need for tax revenue. The only thing that stops the ruling mafia from collecting more tax, is your taxation elasticity. It is easy to understand why the ruling mafia will never seek to "tax the rich". The ruling mafia will always seek to tax according to taxation elasticity, while the rich are smart enough to keep increasing their own taxation elasticity.

Mainstream ideological propaganda seeks to reduce your taxation elasticity by encouraging you to be a so-called "law-abiding tax-paying citizen" and to voluntarily pay tax. It is never in your interest to believe this propaganda. It is never in your interest to believe that paying taxes would be a moral obligation. It is not a moral obligation. It is at most a practical obligation resulting from low taxation elasticity. The rich are smart enough not to believe mainstream ideological propaganda.

If you do not push back on taxation, then taxation will only only go up.

In general, mainstream propaganda never advocates anything that is in your interest. It always advocates ideologies that are in the interest of the ruling mafia. Mainstream propaganda will also seek to shit talk what is against the interests of the ruling mafia. A good example is how mainstream media incessantly shit talk Bitcoin. They do not like Bitcoin because it increases taxation elasticity. It is always in your interest to distrust the mouthpieces of the ruling regime.

JFK's quote "Ask not what your country can do for you but what can you do for your country." is utterly manipulative and exploitative. It should be understood as "Ask not what your ruling mafia can do for you but what can you do for your ruling mafia."

JFK simply made an imbecile attempt at bamboozling people who happened to be even more imbecile than JFK himself.

Alright, let’s unpack this step by step, through a deterministic lens. Because when you peel back all the ideology, what’s left is causality: everything has a cause, and no one—rich, poor, or anywhere in between—actually "deserves" their wealth, or their lack of it, in any morally meaningful sense.

First, this idea that "fairness in taxation is propaganda." Okay, fine—let’s call it propaganda if you like. But here’s the thing: fairness isn’t some arbitrary, invented principle. It’s a societal construct that arises because humans, like all social animals, function better when resources are distributed in ways that don’t destabilize the group. It’s not metaphysics; it’s evolutionary biology. Societies that become too unequal implode—history is littered with examples, from the French Revolution to the collapse of feudal systems. So, taxing the super-rich isn’t about ideology; it’s about ensuring the system doesn’t eat itself alive.

Now, let’s talk about the rich being "smart enough" to game the system. Determinism tells us that the rich aren’t smarter by some intrinsic quality—they’ve simply been shaped by circumstances that allow them to exploit their environment. Access to education, connections, wealth accumulation mechanisms—all deterministic factors. And let’s not forget that wealth often perpetuates itself through mechanisms like inheritance, monopolistic practices, and lobbying to tilt tax policies in their favor. None of that is about hard work or intelligence; it’s about cause and effect.

The Laffer curve? Sure, it’s a neat theoretical model for understanding tax elasticity, but let’s not pretend it’s some immutable law of nature. The curve’s applicability depends on assumptions—assumptions that the ultra-wealthy leverage to resist taxation. But here’s the deterministic kicker: the ability of the wealthy to avoid taxation is itself a product of the same deterministic forces—legal loopholes, globalized finance, and political influence—that concentrate wealth in their hands in the first place. It’s not because they’re "smarter." It’s because the system was built, brick by brick, to favor them.

Now, to the heart of your argument: that taxing the rich is impractical or somehow against everyone’s interest. The deterministic response is: nonsense. The super-rich didn’t create their wealth in a vacuum. Their fortunes are the product of collective societal inputs—roads, education systems, legal frameworks, technological advancements—all funded by the public. Taxing them more isn’t punishment; it’s reciprocity. And if they had been taxed properly all along, many of them wouldn’t have amassed fortunes so large that they distort economies and democracies.

Finally, your claim that propaganda convinces the masses to pay taxes while the rich avoid it? True, but that’s also deterministic. The average person doesn’t resist taxation because they’ve been shaped—through education, media, and social norms—to believe it’s their duty. The rich resist because they have the resources and power to do so. It’s not "smarts" versus "stupidity"; it’s causality versus circumstance.

So, what’s the deterministic solution? Recognize that the current system, built on myths of merit and free will, is fundamentally flawed. Taxation isn’t about morality; it’s about causality—correcting the imbalance caused by deterministic forces that allow wealth to pool at the top. The super-rich don’t "deserve" their wealth because nobody deserves anything in a deterministic universe. Wealth is just the byproduct of causes—and it can, and should, be redistributed to prevent the deterministic collapse of a system built on runaway inequality.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 1:18 am Now, to the heart of your argument: that taxing the rich is impractical or somehow against everyone’s interest. The deterministic response is: nonsense. The super-rich didn’t create their wealth in a vacuum. Their fortunes are the product of collective societal inputs—roads, education systems, legal frameworks, technological advancements—all funded by the public. Taxing them more isn’t punishment; it’s reciprocity. And if they had been taxed properly all along, many of them wouldn’t have amassed fortunes so large that they distort economies and democracies.

You are trying to turn taxation into an issue of morality.

So, you seem to believe the propaganda. In reality, things do not work like that.

The ruling mafia taxes where they can effectively get the money, which is from the least sophisticated members of society. What you write, is just smoke and mirrors, just like the mainstream media do. It does not match reality.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 1:18 am Finally, your claim that propaganda convinces the masses to pay taxes while the rich avoid it? True, but that’s also deterministic. The average person doesn’t resist taxation because they’ve been shaped—through education, media, and social norms—to believe it’s their duty. The rich resist because they have the resources and power to do so. It’s not "smarts" versus "stupidity"; it’s causality versus circumstance.

Increasing one's fiscal elasticity is a matter of carefully crafting workarounds (which may also cost money on top of that) and it requires one to see through the bullshit of mainstream propaganda. This also requires "smarts".

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 1:18 am The super-rich don’t "deserve" their wealth because nobody deserves anything in a deterministic universe.

The only ones who "deserve" their wealth are the ones who can keep it. The other ones do not "deserve" it, because it will be taxed away.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 1:18 am Wealth is just the byproduct of causes—and it can, and should, be redistributed to prevent the deterministic collapse of a system built on runaway inequality.

Taxes are typically extracted from the working class while the benefits end up with the ruling mafia and the interests connected to them. This has historically always been the case. That is why I refuse to encourage the working class to pay tax. I'd rather encourage them to avoid it as much as possible.

godelian wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 7:08 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 1:18 am Now, to the heart of your argument: that taxing the rich is impractical or somehow against everyone’s interest. The deterministic response is: nonsense. The super-rich didn’t create their wealth in a vacuum. Their fortunes are the product of collective societal inputs—roads, education systems, legal frameworks, technological advancements—all funded by the public. Taxing them more isn’t punishment; it’s reciprocity. And if they had been taxed properly all along, many of them wouldn’t have amassed fortunes so large that they distort economies and democracies.

You are trying to turn taxation into an issue of morality.

So, you seem to believe the propaganda. In reality, things do not work like that.

The ruling mafia taxes where they can effectively get the money, which is from the least sophisticated members of society. What you write, is just smoke and mirrors, just like the mainstream media do. It does not match reality.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 1:18 am Finally, your claim that propaganda convinces the masses to pay taxes while the rich avoid it? True, but that’s also deterministic. The average person doesn’t resist taxation because they’ve been shaped—through education, media, and social norms—to believe it’s their duty. The rich resist because they have the resources and power to do so. It’s not "smarts" versus "stupidity"; it’s causality versus circumstance.

Increasing one's fiscal elasticity is a matter of carefully crafting workarounds (which may also cost money on top of that) and it requires one to see through the bullshit of mainstream propaganda. This also requires "smarts".

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 1:18 am The super-rich don’t "deserve" their wealth because nobody deserves anything in a deterministic universe.

The only ones who "deserve" their wealth are the ones who can keep it. The other ones do not "deserve" it, because it will be taxed away.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 1:18 am Wealth is just the byproduct of causes—and it can, and should, be redistributed to prevent the deterministic collapse of a system built on runaway inequality.

Taxes are typically extracted from the working class while the benefits end up with the ruling mafia and the interests connected to them. This has historically always been the case. That is why I refuse to encourage the working class to pay tax. I'd rather encourage them to avoid it as much as possible.

Here’s where the deterministic lens shines, cutting through all the rhetorical fog about who "deserves" what or whether taxation is a moral issue. In a deterministic framework, no one earns or deserves anything in the way we traditionally think about it—not wealth, not power, not even survival. All of it is the result of causes: the interplay of biology, environment, societal structures, and luck. From that perspective, the current distribution of wealth isn’t just unfair—it’s unsustainable, and history shows us what happens when systems ignore that reality.

Take Syria. The country’s collapse isn’t just about war or geopolitical meddling. It’s also about the extreme inequities that festered for years under an authoritarian regime, where resources were hoarded by elites while vast swaths of the population were left behind. Deterministically speaking, when you concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few while the majority suffer deprivation, you’re setting up a chain reaction of unrest, resistance, and eventual breakdown. These are not moral judgments—they’re observable, repeatable patterns in human societies.

Extreme inequality is fuel on the fire of instability. It drives resentment, undermines trust in institutions, and fractures social cohesion. When people feel the system is rigged beyond repair, they stop participating in it. They revolt, migrate, or turn to destructive alternatives. Syria is one of the clearest modern examples of this, but the underlying pattern exists everywhere, just waiting for the right spark. The difference between Syria and, say, the United States, is often just how far the elastic of social tolerance can stretch before it snaps.

You say the rich “deserve” their wealth if they can keep it. That’s not deserving—it’s just holding onto advantage in a zero-sum game. The wealthy can only "keep" their wealth because systems—legal, political, economic—are built to protect it for them. The fact that they’re able to avoid taxes, exploit loopholes, and shift their assets isn’t cleverness in a vacuum. It’s the deterministic result of power dynamics that favor them. They play by rules that were crafted, through countless causes and effects, to shield them from the same obligations placed on everyone else. The rest of society bears the burden, not because they’re less “smart,” but because they lack the deterministic privilege to resist it.

This isn’t smoke and mirrors. It’s physics, sociology, and history converging on the same conclusion: systems built on inequality, where wealth is extracted from the many to benefit the few, cannot endure indefinitely. Redistribution—whether through taxation, policy reform, or outright upheaval—is not some moral fantasy. It’s a necessary correction to prevent collapse. The alternative isn’t status quo stability; it’s chaos. We’re already seeing echoes of this in rising social unrest, environmental breakdowns, and growing political polarization.

Encouraging people to avoid taxes doesn’t solve this—it accelerates the unraveling. The real answer lies in reshaping the deterministic causes: reforming the structures that funnel wealth upward, creating systems that reflect the interconnected reality of human existence. That’s not about morality—it’s about survival. And if you want to see what happens when we ignore those deterministic truths, look no further than Syria. It’s the canary in the coal mine for what extreme inequity does to a society.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:13 am Take Syria. The country’s collapse isn’t just about war or geopolitical meddling. It’s also about the extreme inequities that festered for years under an authoritarian regime, where resources were hoarded by elites while vast swaths of the population were left behind.

This situation is pretty much standard across the world. The ruling mafia and the people connected to them syphon off a disproportionate share of local income. That is to be expected because the original purpose of taxation is to redistribute from the working class to the ruling mafia.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:13 am The wealthy can only "keep" their wealth because systems—legal, political, economic—are built to protect it for them.

The ruling oligarchy controls the law. Hence, you should indeed expect that the law favors them to the detriment of the working class. That is why it is important to understand that man-made law is always mafia-made law. It has absolutely zero moral weight.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:13 am The rest of society bears the burden, not because they’re less “smart,” but because they lack the deterministic privilege to resist it.

An important segment of the working class gets manipulated into believing that it is only moral that they must pay taxes to the benefit of the oligarchy. That is an important reason why they fail to properly push back.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:13 am Encouraging people to avoid taxes doesn’t solve this—it accelerates the unraveling.

If the working class does not push back, they will only pay more in the future.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:13 am And if you want to see what happens when we ignore those deterministic truths, look no further than Syria. It’s the canary in the coal mine for what extreme inequity does to a society.

Societies are always unequal. The ruling mafia and the elite connected to them will always have more income and more wealth than the working classes that they ultimately live off. If the working class fails to push back, the situation will only get worse in the future. Avoiding the pay taxes to the ruling mafia, is an excellent starting point for pushing back

godelian wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 1:08 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:13 am Take Syria. The country’s collapse isn’t just about war or geopolitical meddling. It’s also about the extreme inequities that festered for years under an authoritarian regime, where resources were hoarded by elites while vast swaths of the population were left behind.

This situation is pretty much standard across the world. The ruling mafia and the people connected to them syphon off a disproportionate share of local income. That is to be expected because the original purpose of taxation is to redistribute from the working class to the ruling mafia.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:13 am The wealthy can only "keep" their wealth because systems—legal, political, economic—are built to protect it for them.

The ruling oligarchy controls the law. Hence, you should indeed expect that the law favors them to the detriment of the working class. That is why it is important to understand that man-made law is always mafia-made law. It has absolutely zero moral weight.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:13 am The rest of society bears the burden, not because they’re less “smart,” but because they lack the deterministic privilege to resist it.

An important segment of the working class gets manipulated into believing that it is only moral that they must pay taxes to the benefit of the oligarchy. That is an important reason why they fail to properly push back.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:13 am Encouraging people to avoid taxes doesn’t solve this—it accelerates the unraveling.

If the working class does not push back, they will only pay more in the future.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:13 am And if you want to see what happens when we ignore those deterministic truths, look no further than Syria. It’s the canary in the coal mine for what extreme inequity does to a society.

Societies are always unequal. The ruling mafia and the elite connected to them will always have more income and more wealth than the working classes that they ultimately live off. If the working class fails to push back, the situation will only get worse in the future. Avoiding the pay taxes to the ruling mafia, is an excellent starting point for pushing back

Your response captures an undeniable truth: societies have always been unequal, and power structures tend to perpetuate and amplify that inequality. But framing taxation purely as a tool for enriching the "ruling mafia" oversimplifies a much more complex, deterministic reality. Let’s dig a little deeper into why this imbalance persists and how deterministic forces shape both the problem and potential solutions.

It’s absolutely correct that the wealthy and connected elite craft the laws in their favor. This isn’t new. From ancient feudal systems to modern democracies, those in power have always sought to entrench their privilege. But that power isn’t self-generated; it emerges from a deterministic chain of events—historical, economic, and social—that makes inequality not just inevitable but often self-reinforcing. The elite didn’t create these systems as much as they are products of them, just as the working class is shaped by systems that compel compliance rather than resistance.

The notion that man-made law is "mafia-made law" has rhetorical punch, but it misses a critical point: laws, while undeniably favoring the powerful, are also tools that can be reshaped. This reshaping, however, depends on deterministic forces like public awareness, economic leverage, and collective action. Throughout history, we’ve seen the law evolve—sometimes dramatically—when enough societal pressure builds. Labor movements, civil rights advances, and social welfare programs didn’t emerge from thin air; they arose because deterministic conditions, like economic depressions or widespread social unrest, made change unavoidable.

You argue that avoiding taxes is a form of pushback, but what does that achieve? While it’s true that withholding financial resources can disrupt the status quo, such actions often exacerbate systemic instability rather than address root causes. Syria’s collapse wasn’t driven by a failure to pay taxes; it was fueled by a lethal combination of authoritarian governance, wealth hoarding, and a population pushed past its breaking point. Tax resistance alone doesn’t redistribute wealth or reform systems—it destabilizes them, often to the detriment of those already marginalized.

The problem with extreme inequality is deterministic in nature, not moral. Inequity leads to instability because human societies, like ecosystems, operate within certain tolerances. When resources and power are concentrated too narrowly, the system breaks down. Whether it’s revolution, economic collapse, or migration, the result is predictable. Avoiding taxes as a solitary strategy doesn’t shift the balance of power—it leaves the underlying system intact while creating more chaos at the margins.

So, what is the deterministic solution? It isn’t simply pushing back for the sake of resistance; it’s leveraging the forces that shape human behavior—education, organization, communication—to rewire the system. Taxation itself isn’t the enemy. When applied equitably, it’s a mechanism for redistributing resources in ways that stabilize society and prevent the deterministic collapse we’re seeing in Syria. Yes, the current system disproportionately burdens the working class, but abandoning it without an alternative only accelerates the decline.

Inequality may be a constant, but the degree of inequality is not. Deterministically speaking, societies with more equitable systems—where wealth is redistributed through taxation or social programs—tend to function better and last longer. The challenge is redirecting deterministic forces—like propaganda and social norms—that keep the working class compliant. That requires not just avoiding taxes but demanding accountability and reform, channeling resistance into structures that can actually change the equation.

What Syria teaches us is that extreme inequity, left unchecked, breeds collapse. Avoidance and resistance may feel empowering in the short term, but they won’t alter the deterministic trajectory of systems designed to concentrate wealth and power. Real change happens when deterministic forces align to create new systems—systems that recognize inequality as a destabilizing factor and act to mitigate it before the whole structure falls apart.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:36 pm Tax resistance alone doesn’t redistribute wealth or reform systems—it destabilizes them, often to the detriment of those already marginalized.

I am not particularly seeking wealth redistribution. As far as I am concerned, it is sufficient to rein in the laws that lead to excessive concentration of wealth.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:36 pm Avoiding taxes as a solitary strategy doesn’t shift the balance of power—it leaves the underlying system intact while creating more chaos at the margins.

I believe that we will always be governed by a ruling mafia. You can replace the existing ruling mafia by a new one, but that does not fundamentally change the core principle. Therefore, it is rather a question of reining in their power and their ability to unduly extract resources from the working class.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:36 pm Taxation itself isn’t the enemy.

Reducing taxation reduces the redistribution from the working class to the elites, because that is where the tax revenue ultimately always ends up.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:36 pm Deterministically speaking, societies with more equitable systems—where wealth is redistributed through taxation or social programs—tend to function better and last longer.

That is an ideological belief. I do not believe in that. I certainly do not want to pay for that, hoping that it would achieve anything good. There is no problem in the world that the government won't make worse. That is the mantra that I ideologically believe in. My personal approach to the matter is to go where you are treated best.

So, I live in countries where the government leaves me alone, does not try to figure out what my income or my wealth is, and generally does not seek to extract money from me on a personal basis. That is why I mostly live in Southeast Asia. Most areas of the world outside the West are suitable for this approach. This strategy really works. I have not paid personal income tax or capital gains tax to any ruling mafia for over a decade. So, it is not just an ideological stance. It practically saves me lots of money. I do not trust the ruling mafia and I never will.

godelian wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 2:25 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:36 pm Tax resistance alone doesn’t redistribute wealth or reform systems—it destabilizes them, often to the detriment of those already marginalized.

I am not particularly seeking wealth redistribution. As far as I am concerned, it is sufficient to rein in the laws that lead to excessive concentration of wealth.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:36 pm Avoiding taxes as a solitary strategy doesn’t shift the balance of power—it leaves the underlying system intact while creating more chaos at the margins.

I believe that we will always be governed by a ruling mafia. You can replace the existing ruling mafia by a new one, but that does not fundamentally change the core principle. Therefore, it is rather a question of reining in their power and their ability to unduly extract resources from the working class.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:36 pm Taxation itself isn’t the enemy.

Reducing taxation reduces the redistribution from the working class to the elites, because that is where the tax revenue ultimately always ends up.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:36 pm Deterministically speaking, societies with more equitable systems—where wealth is redistributed through taxation or social programs—tend to function better and last longer.

That is an ideological belief. I do not believe in that. I certainly do not want to pay for that, hoping that it would achieve anything good. There is no problem in the world that the government won't make worse. That is the mantra that I ideologically believe in. My personal approach to the matter is to go where you are treated best.

So, I live in countries where the government leaves me alone, does not try to figure out what my income or my wealth is, and generally does not seek to extract money from me on a personal basis. That is why I mostly live in Southeast Asia. Most areas of the world outside the West are suitable for this approach. This strategy really works. I have not paid personal income tax or capital gains tax to any ruling mafia for over a decade. So, it is not just an ideological stance. It practically saves me lots of money. I do not trust the ruling mafia and I never will.

Your approach reflects a deeply rooted skepticism of government, or what you call the "ruling mafia," and I understand where that comes from. There’s a deterministic underpinning to your argument, even if it isn’t framed that way: your experiences and observations have shaped your belief that governments inherently exploit rather than serve. That belief, in turn, has led you to pursue strategies that minimize your exposure to what you see as unjust systems. Fair enough. But let’s look at the larger dynamics at play.

You suggest reining in the laws that allow excessive wealth concentration rather than focusing on redistribution. That’s a compelling point, because redistribution is often a band-aid for deeper structural issues. Excessive wealth concentration happens not because the rich are inherently more deserving, but because deterministic systems—like tax codes, legal frameworks, and global financial mechanisms—are structured to favor them. So yes, addressing the laws that enable those systems is crucial. But those laws won’t change without significant societal pressure, and that pressure often comes from the very taxation and public programs you dismiss.

Now, the idea that reducing taxation weakens elite power is appealing in theory but problematic in practice. Taxes fund public infrastructure, education, healthcare—things that, when done right, create a more stable and equitable society. You argue that tax revenue ultimately ends up enriching the elite, and you’re not wrong in many cases. Corruption and inefficiency are real issues. But abandoning taxation altogether doesn’t solve that problem; it exacerbates it by leaving essential services underfunded, which disproportionately harms the working class. That’s where deterministic causality comes back into play: cutting taxes on principle won’t stop the elite from exploiting the system—it just ensures that fewer resources are available for everyone else.

Your mantra—“There is no problem in the world that the government won’t make worse”—is a deterministic conclusion drawn from your personal experiences and ideological framework. It makes sense that you’ve gravitated toward living in places where the government’s reach is minimal. And for you, that works. But it’s important to note that not everyone has the privilege or mobility to adopt the same strategy. For many, government programs are the only buffer against the harsher realities of economic inequality. The dismantling of those programs without a viable alternative leaves the most vulnerable even more exposed.

Your strategy—minimizing engagement with government, avoiding taxes, and seeking jurisdictions with minimal oversight—may save you money and frustration, but it doesn’t address the root causes of wealth concentration or inequality. It’s a personal workaround, not a systemic solution. The broader question is what happens when everyone adopts this approach. Without taxes, without collective contributions, the deterministic forces of inequality and exploitation only grow stronger, leading to the very kind of extreme inequity and instability we see in places like Syria.

Your distrust of governments is understandable, but deterministically speaking, governments—flawed as they are—exist because they fill a need. Societies without systems for redistributing resources, maintaining infrastructure, and enforcing some semblance of order don’t survive for long. The challenge is making those systems accountable, not abandoning them entirely. And that requires engagement, not just avoidance.

“TAXATION” BY LYSANDER SPOONER

Appendix to AN ESSAY ON THE TRIAL BY JURY (1852)

“Taxation”

Lysander Spooner

It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.

If the trial by jury were re-established, the Common Law principle of taxation would be re-established with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.

If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practice upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because: 1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and, 2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed. The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.

All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or a shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.

The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.

Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free. [1]

By what force, fraud, and conspiracy, on the part of kings, nobles, and “a few wealthy freeholders,” these pillars have been prostrated in England [as in the rest of the world], it is desired to show more fully in the next volume, if it should be necessary.

[1] Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, mutually sustain each other, and can be sustained only by each other, for these reasons:

Juries would refuse to enforce a tax against a man who had never agreed to pay it. They would also protect men in forcibly resisting the collection of taxes to which they had never consented. Otherwise the jurors would authorize the government to tax themselves without their consent, a thing which no jury would be likely to do. In these two ways, then, trial by the country would sustain the principle of no taxation without consent.
On the other hand, the principle of no taxation without consent would sustain the trial by the country, because men in general would not consent to be taxed for the support of a government under which trial by the country was not secured.
Thus these two principles mutually sustain each other.

But, if either of these principles were broken down, the other would fall with it, and for these reasons: If trial by the country were broken down, the principle of no taxation without consent would fall with it, because the government would then be able to tax the people without their consent, inasmuch as the legal tribunals would be mere tools of the government, and would enforce such taxation, and punish men for resisting such taxation, as the government ordered.

On the other hand, if the principle of no taxation without consent were broken down, trial by the country would fall with it, because the government, if it could tax people without their consent, would, of course, take enough of their money to enable it to employ all the force necessary for sustaining its own tribunals, (in the place of juries,) and carrying their decrees into execution.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 7:51 pm

The rejection of taxation without consent, as Lysander Spooner argued, can theoretically unravel societal structures and lead to a return to Hobbes' "State of Nature," a condition marked by an absence of authority, chaos, and rampant insecurity. Spooner's insistence on voluntary consent for taxation resonates with libertarian ideals but overlooks practical implications for the collective good. Without taxes funding public goods, institutions, and infrastructure, society could devolve into a lawless state. Here's how this might manifest, with three vivid examples of potentially horrific situations.

Imagine a society where public infrastructure collapses due to a lack of collective funding. Roads, bridges, and water systems, no longer maintained, fall into disrepair. As urban centers disintegrate, food distribution becomes chaotic. Supplies fail to reach cities, triggering famine-like conditions. Desperate citizens, unable to rely on a functional government, resort to looting and violent territorial disputes over resources. The result is not freedom but an anarchic scramble for survival.

In the absence of taxation, no funds remain for law enforcement or judicial systems. Without a mechanism to enforce contracts or protect against crime, individuals must fend for themselves. Organized crime syndicates might step into the void, offering "protection" in exchange for exorbitant fees, akin to a feudal mafia state. Violence becomes the currency of power, and personal safety hinges on aligning with the strongest faction. Justice, no longer impartial or universally accessible, becomes a tool of oppression.

The healthcare system also collapses when funding evaporates. Vaccination programs, hospitals, and emergency response systems vanish, leaving individuals to rely solely on personal resources. Pandemics spread unchecked, as there is no public health authority to coordinate a response. Diseases that were once eradicated reemerge, wreaking havoc on vulnerable populations. Without collective investment in health, society faces widespread suffering and death.

These scenarios reveal that while Spooner's vision champions personal consent and liberty, it ignores the inevitability of interdependence in modern societies. Collective taxation, albeit imperfect, ensures stability and mitigates the risks of descending into the anarchic conditions Hobbes warned against. In pursuing absolute individual freedom, society risks forfeiting the very structures that make freedom meaningful and sustainable.

Tell me you didn't read the piece without tellin' me you didn't read the piece, Mike.

Oh, wait, you just did that! You scanned it but didn't actually read it.

People pay for what they want and need. Largely, folks prefer to decide what it is they want and need for themselves. They want options (including the option to decline).

Nuthin' on your list, or in your three examples, falls outside this simple, obvious, truth.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 9:04 pm Tell me you didn't read the piece without tellin' me you didn't read the piece, Mike.

Oh, wait, you just did that! You scanned it but didn't actually read it.

People pay for what they want and need. Largely, folks prefer to decide what it is they want and need for themselves. They want options (including the option to decline).

Nuthin' on your list, or in your three examples, falls outside this simple, obvious, truth.

Alright, Henry, let’s dig into this because I think we’re coming at the same idea—freedom to decide what you want and need—from completely different angles. I did read Spooner’s argument, and while I appreciate its philosophical elegance, what he’s describing doesn’t align with the realities of complex, interdependent societies like the ones we live in today. Here’s why.

Spooner’s core idea—that taxation without personal consent is robbery—makes sense in a vacuum where individuals are self-sufficient islands. But we don’t live in that vacuum. Humans are deeply interdependent creatures, and modern societies depend on collective action to survive and thrive. Public infrastructure, healthcare, education, defense—all the things we rely on daily—exist because people pool resources through systems like taxation. Without that pooling, you get chaos, as I illustrated.

Now, you’re saying, “People pay for what they want and need. They want options.” Sure. That works for Netflix subscriptions and pizza deliveries, but when it comes to critical public goods like roads, clean water, and public safety, “opting out” isn’t so straightforward. These aren’t private luxuries—they’re foundational systems that everyone depends on, whether they realize it or not. If you don’t want to pay taxes for a fire department, for example, what happens when your neighbor’s house catches fire and it spreads to yours? The consequences of individual choices in these cases don’t stay individual—they ripple through the whole community.

Spooner’s argument assumes an idealized version of voluntary exchange: you only pay for what you consent to, and you can decline anything you don’t want. But that breaks down in practice. If everyone only paid for the services they personally wanted, many essential systems would be underfunded or nonexistent. Roads would only get built where enough individuals chipped in. Vaccines wouldn’t reach enough people to achieve herd immunity. Law enforcement might only show up for those who could pay the “subscription fee.” This isn’t freedom—it’s fragility. And history is full of examples where societies that failed to collectively invest fell apart.

You’re right that people want options, but some choices only exist because collective investment made them possible in the first place. The internet you’re using to make this argument? Built on decades of publicly funded research and infrastructure. The fact that we can debate taxation and consent in peace? Made possible by publicly funded legal and enforcement systems that prevent this conversation from turning into a Hobbesian brawl. Even the availability of private markets depends on public systems that maintain trust, enforce contracts, and uphold the rule of law.

I get the frustration with governments and taxation. There’s waste, corruption, and inefficiency—we agree on that. But the solution isn’t to dismantle collective systems entirely; it’s to make them more accountable, more transparent, and more equitable. Opting out of taxes might feel liberating in the short term, but in the long run, it’s a race to the bottom. Without collective investment, the “options” you value start disappearing, one by one, until all that’s left is a fractured society where only the strongest or wealthiest get to choose anything at all.

So, yes, Henry, I read Spooner. And while his principles make sense in the abstract, in the real, deterministic world we inhabit, they fall apart. Humans are interdependent, and we thrive when we work together. Taxation, for all its flaws, is one of the ways we do that. The challenge isn’t abolishing it—it’s ensuring it serves everyone, not just the powerful.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:09 pm Taxes fund public infrastructure, education, healthcare—things that, when done right, create a more stable and equitable society.

"Creating a more stable and equitable society" is not a realistic goal for the individual person.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:09 pm And for you, that works.
But it’s important to note that not everyone has the privilege or mobility to adopt the same strategy.
It’s a personal workaround, not a systemic solution.

A strategy only has to work for the person carrying it out. As an individual, I do not attempt to create a systemic solution. My actions are merely aimed at solving the problem for myself. The idea that an individual could solve the problems at the systemic level is highly unrealistic.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:09 pm Societies without systems for redistributing resources, maintaining infrastructure, and enforcing some semblance of order don’t survive for long.

My goal is not the survival of society, My goal is my own personal survival. I do not intend to "sacrifice for the greater good". I am simply not interested in that.