" you implicitly agree to whatever the society may want to do to you in the future."

No, that's not what I said. My comments were specifically that one must have a voice in the ongoing process of governance: a vote. If that is deprived or falsified, coercion is instituted. I agree with you completely that a change in the terms of a contract must be mutual for it to be binding. The assertion I can not support is that assent must be a conscious act of consent, such as a signature, rather than simply a failure to do anything at all. That's like a tenant claiming that he doesn't have to pay the rent when the landlord raises the rates on a new contract year, yet still gets to live in the apartment.

"I think you are making the claim that the individual should control their own labour except for in this one area."

You are mistaken. I did not make such an exception. Your definition of taxation was that of an absolute (necessitating coercion). My correction was to note that it was not an absolute, but rather conditional situation. I went on specifically to state that only voluntary taxation was justified.

"I have never voted. I never saw it as useful. Why am I subject to the contract."

Avoiding decision is in and of itself is a decision and all decisions have consequences. The only rights we lose are the ones we fail to exercise - or have exercised on our behalf. To build on the analogy, you continue to live in the apartment, yet complain about the rent. Either negotiate a new contract (vote for people who will change the laws) or move out and find a new apartment.

I don't want to draw you into a endless conversation, and I apologize if I created a straw-man. If it is, it is unintentional, I was just trying to summarize. I will quote you instead.

I think what you have been saying is that by participating in the society at any point in your life, you implicitly agree to whatever the society may want to do to you in the future. This is my problem with the social contract. This dos not exist in any contract that I am aware of. I know of no contract that is one-way where the other party can change the terms of the contract at any time. Or, where the contract is not written that binds one party so firmly that they can be jailed for breaking the contract.

I don't think I am trying to define something into existence, just using logic.

As far as the contradiction, I don't think it is my contradiction to resolve. It is yours. I think you are making the claim that the individual should control their own labour except for in this one area.

For, example, I have never voted. I never saw it as useful. Why am I subject to the contract. Many say that it is because I bought food in a store, or took a job and made money. However, does that mean that someone that is kidnapped who takes food to survive from their captors implicitly agrees to be their captor, and they can now do anything they want to them?

I never said any of those things. I have a right to the products of my own mind. You may quote my words and ask questions. You have no right to make supposition or conclusion on my behalf.

"I think we just disagree that taxes are not backed by force"

You have defined for yourself no case in which taxes are justifiable and you have ignored the situations I brought up citing voluntary action as the critical piece in determining force. The question - again - is whether or not one has the option to fairly participate in the process of governance. If the answer is "no", then all action taken by that government is based on coercive assertion of power, whether it be taxation, law enforcement or otherwise. If the answer is "yes", however, then one's participation in the process equates to voluntary acceptance of the results regardless of agreement with them individually.

In other words, if you choose not to opt-out of being an American citizen, you choose to pay taxes. You choose to take advantage of the military protection so provided, the public services so provided, the consular services so provided, and the status so provided by being a citizen and in exchange you pay for those privileges. Is the overall tax rate justified? No, because many of the services government provides are not tasks government has been authorized in the Constitution to carry out. I do not conflate the ability to tax with the level of taxation nor justify the basis of taxation with its effective rate.

"just because it is good for the collective, it is fine to demand labour from the individual."

I never said this either. I specifically agreed with you that coerced labor equated to slavery and was immoral. You just choose to use a bad definition for taxation.

"which , I fully admit, is a contradiction"

And that is the crux of the matter. The contradiction results because you have created for yourself a faulty definition. I think you will find that once that definition is revised, the resulting logic and argument resolves itself.

Ok, thanks for getting down to the fundamentals with me.

I think we just disagree that taxes are not backed by force, although if I don't pay what the government tells me to, men with guns will eventually show up to lock me in a cage.

I also will disagree that just because it is good for the collective, it is fine to demand labour from the individual. And, the only way to escape state violence is with the assistance of a large enough portion of the collective. I think I agree with Rand on this one.

Although, I don't know of a better alternative, I can imagine that there would be one. I agree that the founders of the US tried very hard to protect the rights of the individual, but I think they ultimately failed in reaching that seemingly impossible goal.

I also agree that allowing people to opt out of paying for things that they receive benefit for is also immoral. However, I still believe that the individual should have the right to choose, which , I fully admit, is a contradiction, but only until a better solution is found.

"Money is a representation of labour"
We agree. Adam Smith FTW!

"Taxation is the involuntary taking [of] money by force"
No. Taxation is not by definition involuntary. To be involuntary, one can have no part in the process by which taxes are created, apportioned/levied, or enforced. If you can vote, you have a part in the process - whether or not you choose to use it and how. Can the process of voting be manipulated? Yes, and it is an egregious violation of self-determination and free society.

If one chooses to participate and set up a society, then authorize the apportionment of taxes for the functioning of said government, one is choosing to do so voluntarily, and any "force" involved would be the justified enforcement of a law one originally agreed to. Is this the rarity? I freely admit yes. But to this point, it is the system of the United States of America - a free society where citizens may vote and as a condition are subject to taxation. Do I support a repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment? Absolutely. Was it passed under pretense and manipulated into what it is now? Yes. Until repeal happens, however, I must either live with it, go to jail, or renounce my citizenship.

"The taking of labour by force is slavery"
Agreed.

"Is opting out of citizenship actually an option?"

Yes. I'm not saying it is easy or that there are "good" alternatives. But the option does exist. I would further point out that the Declaration of Independence itself cites the circumstances in which it is lawful of a people to rise up against their rulers and demand change.

Is opting out of citizenship actually an option? If you opt-out without another citizenship, then you become stateless, and that is a very bad place to be. And, what state right now would match the values that we have been discussing?

To my use of the word slavery. Maybe I am skipping steps or not explaining my view fully.

Money is a representation of labour
Taxation is the involuntary taking money by force
* The taking of labour by force is slavery

Since money = labour and taxation is taking money by force, taxation is the taking of labour by force which equals slavery. I think this is pretty flawless logic. Unless you argue with the soundness of any of the premises?

Your point about a social contract is a valid concern. Historically, citizenship has been granted on either of two bases: birthright and immigration. I don't think immigration is a concern with coercion because it is a voluntary process. Birthright citizenship is another matter as you point out. The question is whether or not the system is opt-in or opt-out. Historically, all citizenship has been of an opt-out nature. This was primarily for simplification of everyone involved because few people choose to renounce their nation of citizenship. Adopting an opt-out position is convenient and efficient.

We could, of course, go to an opt-in system, but I would argue that we already in large measure have that. When one registers to vote at eighteen, one is indicating the desire to participate in self-governance (such as it is). One certainly may at that point choose to renounce citizenship and move to another nation instead, though few acknowledge that this is an option.

While I certainly agree with you about the definition of slavery, I just fail to see at this point a system which coerces one into working without voting (unless one is an illegal immigrant - who can't legally vote anyway), nor do I see a system which prevents one so inclined from revoking their citizenship and moving. While I can certainly identify with the frustration at the excesses and overreach in our existing system, because there are options which can be taken to divest one's self of citizenship, I think it far too strong to suggest the applicability of slavery at this point. Could the next four years cross that line? Absolutely.

Thanks again for the reply. You rightly point out that I did not fully explain my position on why individuals are not bound by a contract made by other people. Now we are talking about the social contract. Are you saying that I am bound by a contract that other people made long ago just for being born in a geographic location?

Second, why I call it slavery. I think that taking labour by force against the will of the individual has a definition in our society. That definition is slavery.

"so forced taxes is actually taking labour by force."

See my previous comments regarding the source of government. If the government was organized by choice rather than by coercion and is maintained by choice rather than coercion, I fail to see the justification in calling it slavery. I would point out that in the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers did not complain about taxation per se, but rather taxation without representation ie being forced to pay taxes without having a say in their own governance. To me this critical distinction is the key to establishing whether or not the taxation is justified.

(BTW - I agree with you that labour and dollars are interchangeable.)

" you allow the government to take labour by force, there seems to be no end to how much they can take"

As I mentioned before, first, there is the justification of taxes itself. I think I've shown that one. But then you also have the quantity of taxes as another issue. I totally agree with you. This was pointed out by several people at the Founding, most notably Alexander Tytler who said "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

So the question becomes, at what point does a taxation level become tyranny? It is an excellent question and I think there could be much debate about the matter. I think the guide should be that if the government is exceeding its specified powers, it is edging into tyranny. As you correctly identify, the issue is that money = power for government, thus it wants to keep spending more and more money regardless of its source. I think that the way government currently approaches revenue and spending is wrong.

I support several things in tandem:
1) repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, and with it all individual and corporate income taxes
2) a return to tariffs as the primary source of Federal government revenue
3) mandatory sunset provisions of two years (corresponding to the term of a Congressman) on every spending bill.
4) every bill coming before Congress must cite the specific Constitutional authority under which it operates.
5) Spending bills must be authorized individually by department. (No "omnibus" bills.)

As to your question about tyranny of the majority, it is solved very easily by permitting the minority to leave. What I caution against is what our current system has turned into: tyranny of the minority.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I see you point on the currency of votes rather than the currency of dollars. However, I don't think of it as dollars either, but labour. Dollars to me is a representation of labour, so forced taxes is actually taking labour by force. What I am having trouble squaring, is calling the slavery of the individual a moral good.

As you stated, if the payment of taxes is left to every individual regarding, say, common defense, then individuals that do no pay do get the unearned benefit of that common defense.

My issue is still that once you allow the government to take labour by force, there seems to be no end to how much they can take "for the common good".

Since I am on a site dedicated to Ayn Rand style egoism, how do you protect the rights of the "smallest minority" from the tyranny of the majority?

The people have already decided that it is something they wish to have by virtue of creating government in the first place. The product of government itself (at least the government set up by the Founders) was in response to market demand for freedom from tyranny. The initial price was the blood of the Revolutionaries. The ongoing price (upkeep cost) is paid in taxes ("A Republic. If you can keep it. - Benjamin Franklin). (One note, however. The personal Income Tax was not established as a part of the original system under the Constitution but rather added first by bill and then by Amendment only a hundred years ago.)

With regard to market forces, you are thinking of market transactions only in terms of money. The currency of choice in a democratic republic, however, is in the vote. If you look at the market of the government in terms of its functional currency - the vote - you can see that it does operate on a principle of supply and demand. The problem is that ultimately, the functional currency of government doesn't translate to the functional currency of action in the marketplace - and this is where the ultimate debasement of both currencies has come to fruition.

The other thing you allude to and which I believe has substantial merit is in the notion of the inflated size of the various markets within the government "economy". What government frequently "votes" on is the establishment of various policies, procedures, bureaucracies, etc., but there is an entirely separate second vote which is on the size and scope of those policies, etc., aka the Budget. It is within this market where the exchange rates are established for the two currencies of votes and dollars. The problem is that the market feedback you are looking to impose only applies on the dollars end of things - it doesn't necessarily translate via the exchange into the votes of actual government currency and therein lies the disconnect and problem. We have to stop trying to force a conversion of dollars to votes on our terms.

Thanks for the reply.

I see the question as more of keeping the "perks" something that people would want to pay for. If paying for government services is voluntary then it is subject to the same market forces as any other service. If they become something that people will not pay for, then the ability to maintain the services will start to suffer.

Without these feedbacks, how do the government agents know how to adjust the services?

If we believe in the invisible hand of the market, why can it not work as well for government services? I see that as a contradiction for those that believe in free market, but want the government to use force to extract labour from the people (Slavery).

The fundamental question you should be asking is really "is the foundation of a given society's creation based on force or on voluntary action?" If it is based on force, such as feudalism, slavery, etc., it has only a foundation of coercion, does it not? One of the things that made this nation's founding unique was that it was formed as a voluntary compact in resistance to the force of coercion and that it mandated the equality of position of every member of society. So if we have a society which is based on a foundation of equality and voluntary association (see First Amendment) which assigns a police power to the State, isn't that in very fact a voluntary agreement for the necessity of taxation in support of that police power? I would argue that it is.

Now here's where things tend to run amok, and that is where the government decides to take on additional powers and roles and use the police power to enforce them. That is where we tend to run into trouble, because what should be recognized is that those additional powers and roles may not necessarily come with a police power! And why not? I would advocate that it relies entirely on the individual merits of the asserted role or power and whether or not the people of society voluntarily agreed to it - both prongs of such a test being required for the condition of "justice" to apply.

There is an additional consideration: that continued association with a particular society (especially a free society) inherently and implicitly dictates an acknowledgement of the laws and government of such a society. True freedom is to be found in the ability of a member of that society to leave said society of their own accord (again see First Amendment). But I find inherent contradiction in the notion of being a member of a voluntary society who wants to take advantage of the perks without paying for them.

So, to take this argument to the logical conclusion... We all would probably agree that government is force, and that government's use of force should be reserved for those that use force against others. However, if you believe that taxation should not be voluntary, are you advocating that government has the right to initiate the use of force? Or that not paying what the government asks is force? Isn't that a slippery slope?

This is a difficult question for me too. I would really like to hear the answer.

Yes, she did. The problem is, however, that you can't have a governing body in society without paying for it. And everyone in society benefits from government. Advocating that only those who wish to will pay for services rendered? hmmmm...

The problem I see is not in mandatory taxation, but in that government has grown outside its mandate because the people themselves have allowed it to.

Considering the Whiskey Rebellion and the Alien and Sedition Act, I'd say the Constitution may have "worked well" at limiting government power and abuse for a span measured in days rather than years.

and the fed gov will be trimmed down and reigned in.

well said!

Agreed. Once the Consitution is followed, voters have the say in their states. We are already seeing migration from poorly run to other states by individuals and the business community.

That was what the original Senate was supposed to be. When the Seventeenth Amendment was passed to shift it so that voting for Senators was no different than voting for Representatives, it took away a major check on the system.

I think we all here decry the welfare system at the Federal level as being nothing more than vote pandering. Though I doubt we can eliminate it at this point, as an interim measure I would fully support that one of the provisions of receiving welfare was to lose the ability to vote. At least that way we couldn't fall into the trap identified by Alexander Fraser Tytler: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship."

The Constitution actually worked and worked very well. But several of the Founders also recognized that people who sought for power would seek to alter the Constitution to allow them to seize and consolidate power in contravention to the original wording of the Constitution. The words of John Adams were prescient "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

People are inventive and will seek to further their own goals. This includes not only the moral, but especially the immoral. The government of today has so far exceeded the express Constitutional foundation it began on no serious parallels can reasonably made. To dismiss this as the failure of the Constitution, however, is to play the victim and deny that the true failure is a failure on the part of the people to educate themselves on the Constitution and the tenets of natural law and vote into office those who uphold those tenets.

Ayn Rand thought government funding should be limited to courts, military and police, AND that it should be voluntary. The problem otherwise is that as soon as you advocate forced funding for whatever pet projects you personally think are important, there's room for everyone else to argue for using force to fund their favorites. Then we end up where we are today, with the government billions of dollars in debt. Who gets to decide what justifies the initiation of force to fund government: you alone, or the majority, or some politicians. Or, on the other hand, does the individual have an inviolate right to property? Either taking away an individual's property (including money) is morally wrong... or it's right. If it's wrong to take another person's property, then taking just "some" of the individual's property, and just for what you think is important, is still wrong.

Excellent point.

Rather than taxes, have fees for every government program. Some fees, like for the military, courts and police, should not be voluntary, since those are absolutely necessary for a safe society, but any other government service should be voluntary, and the use of fees will only be paid by those who want that service. This suggests a flat tax/fee financing system.

Yes. You are right. I was thinking more along the lines of music and movies. As far as processes or products, I would not mind a short head start if you developed the idea just to give you a chance to make up the costs of development before you have to start competing.