I guess what I'm saying is that the citizens of the United States have agreed with being taxed by their Government because they want to be citizens of the United States, and they ratify this agreement by remaining citizens of the United States each and every year (ie. by not moving to Andorra).
Where I agree with Danoff, this does not change the injustice, and this is what Milton Freedman calls voting with your feet. If other do it better, people will move there and they should be free to do so.
My reading of what Vince_Fiero is proposing is that any tax would be inappropriate.
We come back to the issue of security, where people create security, you can move in the same area and not pay for the cost of that security. You are living off the investment of others.
Where is the highest injustice? You take something that is not yours (tax) or you profit from something (security) others build, but do not contribute? Is it possible to take, without that the others get less? I do not believe so, in going into a secured area, you increase the controls needed, if you do not pay for those controls, you are stealing again from the others.
Conclusion, when you go in an area that offers security it is normal that you pay for that service, otherwise vote with your feet.
Where would the deficit be made up then?
Seems like a very strange question to me, it comes down to: My neighbour takes a lot of loans and can not pay them off sufficiently since the rates went up when he had to renew the loans and he keeps making more losses; how should I solve this?
You should not, your neighbour should go bankrupt, not tax you for his stupidity.
So indeed this deficit question comes down to, the world should go bankrupt or money should devaluate (similar effect on loans, the others do not get he same value back as they put into it).
Not practical, not nice (capitalists will loose out on this!), but is it avoidable?
The mistakes made by government in the past are no excuse for continued injustice.
...If your people arent educated, and arent healthy, what are you actually leading? A bunch of stupid fools who are nearly dead. And the power elite, who would then rise to power as a result of their private educations, would have noone to lead. You country would be pretty useless. So they, wanting to have some ability to interact with the world, would send their people to school, so they could build an economy of better thinkers, faster workers, etcetera.
But even the rich cant afford to send EVERYONE to school. So they ask them to give up a small amount of funds so that they can attend a school, which the rich(Government) set-up.
The same applies to healthcare.
If everyone lays around sick and broken all of the time, you arent really leading a country. You're leading a bunch of people who can only lay in beds. "
The way he said it was much more eloquent, but you get the point.
By nature, a government has to give its people SOMETHING, otherwise their people are nothing. The only way to swing this, financially, is to get everyone to kick in. ...
Where I understand that investment makes you more competitive, so as a country if you invest you become more competitive, which benefits the whole society (more jobs, etc ...); the above goes wrong in the transition from
even the rich cant afford to send EVERYONE to school
to
So they ask them to give up a small amount of funds so that they can attend a school, which the rich(Government) set-up.
there is no difference in the amount of money, there is no difference in the capability to educate EVERYONE. The transfer of the money to the government does not change the ability to realise something.
Society is what gives something, capitalism will say, people will vote by their purchase (Mises) where most development is needed, if education is needed people will invest in it. Government can only impede development by forcing people to spend their money on things they might not want, the majority forces the individual to do what they think is best and kill individual initiative.
It is a matter of belief, do you belief the few elected to government are smarter then all the others combined (socialism, taxing) or do you believe that the actions of all individuals together (the invisible hand, private initiative in spending) is smarter?
