> You seem to be forgetting that the tax money is take by threat of force.
That's a fairly extremist position, there are lots of people that would voluntarily give a portion of their income up for taxes if it would lead to a better society.
I'm one of those, and I'm fairly happy to give up my 40+% in return for a relatively safe society, subsidized health care and reasonably good public roads and free education, as well as a catchnet for people that are down on their luck, even if I personally probably have a bit less expendable income because of that because I produce more that goes in to the system than I consume. But maybe next week I'll have a car accident and a half a million dollar bill will result and I will still have a house to go back to.
Now I realize that not all of that money is spent wisely, and maybe we could make things more efficient, but societies cost money to operate, and societies that are 'social' (as opposed to socialist, it seems to be a common mistake to think of them as identical) cost a bit more.
There must be some level at which you would object, no? On what grounds do you object when the percentage becomes 50%, 80% or even 100%? You've already conceded the principle and a slave is still a slave regardless if he cooperates with his master. Moreover, nothing I said implies that roads, education, medical services or even charity would not be funded -- in fact you proved my point, these things would be funded voluntarily precisely because many people (myself included) value them. Funding these things by force is immoral. If you think my position is extreme, try not paying your taxes for a few years and learn what the "threat of force" really means to your own freedom and right to property.
Aah, Churchill's old insult: "Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?"
"Umm, well, I suppose so."
"Her's a tenner, lift your skirt."
"What do you take me for?"
"We have already settled the question of what you are, now we are haggling over the price."
Makes for a humorous story, but it's a terrible reduction ad absurdum argument. The fact that I am prepared to give up x percent of my income in exchange for a given set of benefits that have value to me says nothing about how I would feel giving up 2x or 3x percent of my income for some possibly different set of benefits.
Speaking as an Ontarian, I'd be horrified if a political offered to cut my taxes in half and give me the "freedom" to choose my own health care in the "free market."
That doesn't make me a slave, it makes me someone who pools certain funds in a coöperative manner. If you want the same argument back at you, try dismantling your army and giving every citizen the right to defend themselves from foreign aggression, buying their weaponry and training on the free market.
Choosing to voluntarily pool some portion of your income with other citizens to fund a common defense is not slavery either. It's another kind of freedom.
That's a fairly extremist position, there are lots of people that would voluntarily give a portion of their income up for taxes if it would lead to a better society.
I'm one of those, and I'm fairly happy to give up my 40+% in return for a relatively safe society, subsidized health care and reasonably good public roads and free education, as well as a catchnet for people that are down on their luck, even if I personally probably have a bit less expendable income because of that because I produce more that goes in to the system than I consume. But maybe next week I'll have a car accident and a half a million dollar bill will result and I will still have a house to go back to.
Now I realize that not all of that money is spent wisely, and maybe we could make things more efficient, but societies cost money to operate, and societies that are 'social' (as opposed to socialist, it seems to be a common mistake to think of them as identical) cost a bit more.