Decius wrote:
While theoretically speaking our government occurs by consent

Precisely, and this is the crux of the whole thing. I don't disagree that your alternatives are minimal if you're of the opinion that our government isn't for you, and essentially boil down to a) go to another country b) live on open seas, c) kill yourself. Should there be an opt-out clause in the constitution? I don't know.

It pretty clearly wouldn't be practical though, and frankly, I think that exposes a deeper understanding of the degree of interdependency inherent in our society. Not as an after-effect, but as a foundational element. The notion of a man living entirely independent of society is not just a little bit batty, but also almost completely impossible. There are no real frontiers you can just walk past to get away. There are no places left where you can live and not be affected at all by the rest of humanity.

This all has implications for the definition of liberty : if you are completely free, you are also completely independent, isolated. Thus the idea of complete personal, individual liberty carries with it a presumption of detachment from society. As I believe that being completely solitary is not practically possible, then complete liberty isn't possible either. Nor is it desirable, or even necessarily moral according to some frameworks, but I'll table that for the moment.

Society grows by exploiting the benefits of networks, in large part. Of all people, surely, one who has studied social networks in such detail knows this. Individual genius and perseverance are indeed responsible for many of the great leaps forward, but they are nothing without their context. The network provides the framework for a non-zero-sum game of progress, and we're all born onto the network. One may rage, if one wishes, against the unfairness of being born into a system they find unpleasant, but doing so misses the point.

To argue against (the notion of) taxes is to argue against the maintenance of the network upon which society is and has been built. Well, fine, I'll admit I'm overstating that somewhat... the money could be derived elsewise, but I submit that those alternatives are either untenable due to scaling issues or due to human nature. I absolutely believe that taxation is the most fair and moral way to maintain society. The majority of arguments against taxation are, fundamentally, arguments against the fabric of society. The usually implied assumptions that an alternative -- and better -- network structure would take it's place have never been convincing to me (e.g. "the Free Market will take care of it" or "communities and local charitable organizations (including church groups) will take care of it" and so on). Of course, many arguments simply leave out even an implication of a better overall system.

In short, then, the reason that I do not feel overburdened by the "moral hazard" of taxation is that I find all arguments against it to be based upon a flawed understanding of the nature of society. Or else based purely on greed, which is a simpler issue to contend with, of course.

It doesn't constitute theft largely because I view it as the major mechanism by which I can maintain the existence of a social network which has been responsible for enabling my own success and, in fact, enabling Progress itself.

RE: FIVE CONSERVATIVE MYTHS