Gene Wolfe Fans Talk Politics (Again)

brunians at brunians.org · 19 May 2009, 20:43 · from 2009-May.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: brunians at brunians.org (brunians at brunians.org)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 16:43:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: (urth) Gene Wolfe Fans Talk Politics (Again)
In-Reply-To: <2BCC6FAA-905B-4A04-BFAE-817E0EDE9BD8 at io.com>
References: <mailman.68838.1242757770.12296.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
	<4A1304A1.1000901 at verizon.net>
	<13409.67.142.130.18.1242761222.squirrel at brunians.org>
	<2BCC6FAA-905B-4A04-BFAE-817E0EDE9BD8 at io.com>
Message-ID: <10067.67.142.130.18.1242765830.squirrel at brunians.org>

Let me explain what I mean by consensual and non-consensual:

The government wants you to pay taxes, which they are going to spend on
whatever. You or I may approve of everything they spend it on, or we may
approve of some of it, or we may approve of none of it. No matter: we must
pay. If we do not, legal processes will be begun against us, and we may be
forced to pay fines, or sent to prison or even (if we are extremely
unlucky) killed.

What I would like you (or someone) to explain to me is how this process
can be described as consensual. It seems to me much more like extortion by
threat of violence.

I think that there are legitimate uses for tax money: you mention some of
them (I don't think I would include public education among them, I don't
think that the government should be involved too much in educating
people), which are important enough that people should be forced to pay
for them. I think that this practice should be kept to a strict minimum,
and I would never distort reality to the extent that I would describe it
as voluntary. It is an exercise of force.

Perhaps the word voluntary is better than consensual.

It is good and public spirited of you to pay your taxes voluntarily. But
it's not like you really have an option.

.

> On May 19, 2009, at 2:27 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote:
>> Please do explain how consensual taxation works: I am all ears.
>
> This one's easy.
>
> The government provides services I find beneficial, such as police and
> fire protection, maintained roads, public education, and so forth.
>
> On balance, the amount I'm paying for those services seems broadly
> fair.  Sure, there are inefficiences--waste, corruption, places money
> is spent where I think it shouldn't be and things that don't get
> funded that I think should be--but I am much more in favor of it than
> I would be of a zero-taxation Hobbesian war of all against all.  I
> lack the ruthlessness (not to mention physical conditioning) necessary
> to survive for long in *that* world.
>
> Therefore, taxation is, at least for me, consensual.  Sure, that
> doesn't mean I don't think it can improve--that's why I vote on local
> taxation-related ballot initiatives, for instance--but it represents
> something much closer to my ideal state than its absence would.
>
> Adam
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net