|
|
Sales Tax vs. Income Tax - I choose neither!Jan 19 '01 (Updated Mar 17 '01) Write an essay on this topic.The Bottom Line Since neither form of taxation is needed in order for a free country to exist, I choose none of the above. Why choose between the lesser of two evils? Must I energetically endorse one when I know in my heart that both are wrong? Let's rid ourselves of the notion that what's yours is mine and what's mine is yours and examine what taxation really is. *Using theft to prevent theft* Extortion is defined by Webster's Dictionary as "the act or practice of wresting anything from a person by force, by threats, or by any undue exercise of power." In other words, taking one's property without consent, either by force, fraud, or threat can be considered extortion. It then follows that one given "power" by others to take property from another for whatever reason, regardless of how "noble" it may be, is in effect committing extortion when not given permission by the owner, regardless of the thief's political title. Also, according to Webster's definition, when the owner gives consent for his property to be taken, and does not do so out of fear of retribution, but rather due to a fraudulent explanation of why the property must be taken, extortion has also been committed. Is taxation not accurately described by the aforementioned definitions? Is being sent to prison for income tax evasion not an adequate threat? And is the actual act of arrest anything but force? Also, in what way is taxation different from the black hand notes used by the mafia which was later deemed by the court system to be extortion? Much like government, the mafia exercised authority over certain jurisdictions offering them "protection" for a fee. If the fee was not paid, the mafia used force. So when is the use of force justified? Well, that can only be determined by your own concept of morality. Do you feel you have the right to use force to impose your own concept of morality upon others? What about using it to pay for services that you feel are best for everyone else? *But what will happen to my favorite government program?* How then can government exist without the use of extortion? Some say it can't. Others say that each of government's functions can be privatized, thus creating competition and causing people to *gasp* pay for services that they actually receive! Even some of the basic constitutional functions of government can still operate under such conditions. Does it make any sense to fund a criminal justice system by resorting to the same methods that such a system is supposed to prevent? Committing mass extortion to "protect" people from extortion seems to me to be quite counterproductive. Therefore, the only possible way for a criminal justice system to exist without the use of extortion is through voluntary donation. This would also help to eliminate big-government police-state policies like the war on "victimless crimes" and overbearing right-wing morality legislation, simply because most people would have no desire to fund such expensive programs with little return. Some may ask: "If funding a criminal justice system is optional, who would ever pay?" Like most everything in life, those whose best interests it serves would pay. For instance, is it not in RCA Records' best interest to help fund the system that protects its copyrights? Is it not in XYZ Manufacturer's best interest to help fund the system that enforces the contracts that it signs? But wouldn't it be more cost effective for these companies to hire private enforcement companies to perform these services? Maybe. But they'd be losing a major benefit in doing so - good PR. Using and funding a standardized service (in this case, a criminal justice system whose purpose - at least as the public sees it - is to benefit society) to enforce anything legitimizes the actions required to provide the enforcement. Likewise, is there any reason that a fire department will not grow from a free market? As long as houses continue to burn, fire departments will exist because there is clearly a demand for such an service. In fact, in the case of a fire, since hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property are usually covered under any given house insurance plan, so too would the relatively inexpensive fire department costs (resulting in slightly higher premiums). Is it not then in the insurance companies' best interest to set up a fire department plan with one of the local private fire departments in advance? Who will maintain roads if government doesn't continue to collect exorbitantly high road fees? Ask yourself this: if roads deteriorated tomorrow, who would suffer the most? You, as a driver, wouldn't be the only one. I wonder what Exxon, GM, and Ford would think about such prospects. Is it in their best interests to allow roads to deteriorate? As the CEO of General Motors, what solution would you provide? Would it be to watch your sales plummet or would it be to incur some of the relatively low road maintenance costs and then pass it down to the consumer? Essentially, much like most government functions, road maintenance is a subsidy for multibillion dollar corporations. Will charity cease to exist once the government stops taking money from person A to give to person B? Government's form of forced charity is anything but philanthropic. Those who feel that the human race must be coerced into being charitable have no faith in society, and therefore do not respect their fellow man. Is there anything more egotistical than placing yourself so far above society as to claim that you know how to take care of others but everyone else does not? So rather than asking which method of extortion you advocate, please consider the option rarely mentioned - neither.  |
| Read all comments (4)|Write your own comment |
|
Ads by Google
|
