The Gunman and the Tax Collector.

[Chrysalis]

What is your obligation towards the gunman who wants your money that isn't an obligation towards the tax collector who wants your money?

What's the difference between the two scenarios. The gunman sticks a gun on you and demands your wallet. Either you give him what he wants or he shoots you and you die. If you think you have a duty to defend yourself, then the gunman has a true claim against what you own. How does this become true? Think. You are in a situation where the gunman in a minute or two can pull the trigger or let you live. Is this correct?

The tax collector makes the same demand: he wants your money. But he doesn't use a gun, he uses imprisonment or punishment as a threat, so you pay up. What is his rightful claim against you that makes it "more" rightful than the gunman's claim?

What is your obligation to the tax collector that isn't an obligation to the gunman, and vice versa.

Please, I need your view. This is a political philosophy discussion in which "obligation" or duty becomes an ambiguous dilemma.

[apathy maybe]

The difference between the two is obvious. One is "legitimate" the other is not. Beyond that they are very similar. As you point out, both threaten you if you do not pay.

The main difference is that the state recognises one, and will thus not prosecute them, and with the other, the state may attempt to hunt them down, and you might get your money back.

The state does not like those who use violence or threaten it, unless the state has given permission.


As to obligation to the state or government, we have no obligation. They force us to comply with their rules, we have no say in those rules. They govern us as if we were children, and we have no say in who governs us.

They talk about obligation, they talk about protection. They are the biggest protection racket around. We are only obliged to them because they leave us no choice in the matter. We cannot live anywhere where some state does not exist.


Fuck the state.

[Chrysalis]

apathy maybe:

Thanks for that response. You've raised one of the most pertinent, if not the most pertinent, objections against or support for why we are obligated to something, like following the law, etc: "legitimacy".

I forgot, btw, to at least narrow down what I meant by "obligation" in my opening post. The sense I wanted to say is in moral obligation. What makes it a moral duty (ethics) to obey the taxman, but not the gunman. And I find it still problematic to say, because the taxman is "legitimate", and the gunman is not. Becasue, what if I say fascism was a legitimate government policy in some parts of the world at a certain point in history, are we going to say that because this policy is legitimate, the way laws are legitimate because they were approved in the congress or parliament, that we are obligated to follow it? I mean, morally, I reject this policy, yet it is a governemnt policy.

So, the argument of legitimacy, I think, fails.

There is something about the hypothetical gunman and taxman that I need to distinguish so that I can say that giving my money to the taxman is an obligation, but not my giving the money to the gunman. Yet, when things are considered, it seems, the obligation towards the taxman is harder to define.

[apathy maybe]

The difference is "legitimacy". However, this is enforced legitimacy by the state onto us. As such it is not real legitimacy.

I would argue that there is no more moral obligation to obey the tax collector then the gunman. Both are thief's, both use violence or the threat of violence against you. As I said the only difference is that the state considers themselves legitimate, where as the state considers the gunman illegitimate.

If you are trying to find a philosophical argument as to why you should pay your taxes, you have come to the wrong place. If you can get away with it, you shouldn't pay your taxes!

The reason you pay taxes is because you think that you might not get away with it.

More generally considering laws, I would argue that ethically, if you disagree with a law then you should disobey it! And then try and get out of the consequences because you also oppose them.
Civil disobedience says that a person accepts that the system is legitimate, but the particular law is not. As such they accept punishment when they break a law. On the other hand revolutionaries do not see any part of the system as legitimate. As such we break the law, and try and get away with it.

[BreadBros]

The question of morals is one I won't really go into. I'm not really one up for much philosophizing. In my view, depending on the circumstances, there is no "moral" obligation to do either. Chances are people would do both however because in both cases certain amounts of liberty or well-being are in danger.

However, before human society is able to transcend or progress past institutions such as the state or taxation, you have to understand them for what they are. While at it's essence taxation is merely a legitimized form of wealth appropriation by the upper classes, there are specific reasons for it's historical existence. Systems of tribute and wealth redistribution have their origins in the rise of sedentary, agriculture societies that employed economic differentiation. The more stratified and complex a society became the more taxation (or tribute systems) became commonly employed. First and foremost as a sort of "payment" to a ruler who acted as a type of economic coordinator in a society. When human society progressed past mere subsistence agriculture or hunting and gathering where everyone participated in food collection, economic specialization arose, craftsman, proto "scientists"/agronomists, etc. Rulers used taxation and tribute to redistribute food and supplies as markets or formal trading were in rudimentary existence. Governments and rulers also needed taxed wealth to summon vast labor forces to construct infrastructure and other public works.

On the other hand, robbery is merely a crime thats symptomatic of poverty and other factors. That is why today one form is legitimized and one is not. As the organization of human society and methods of production change, future human societies will likely see government and taxation for what it is and do away with it.

[rouchambeau]

For every right there is a duty. It would be a duty to pay to the tax collector if you derive any rights from the tax collector.

[loveme4whoiam]

"Taxation is just a sophisticated way of demanding money with menaces" - Lord Vetinari, Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels.

'Nuff said if you ask me. apathy maybe got it absolutely spot on. There is not moral problem with evading taxes, unless you also have a moral problem with subverting any other part of the state. In which, you have come to the wrong place :D

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 11:11 PM
For every right there is a duty. It would be a duty to pay to the tax collector if you derive any rights from the tax collector.
No! You are forced to pay the tax collector regardless of any 'rights' you receive.

This is like saying, if the gunman gave you a cookie for every dollar he stole you should give him your money. You get a 'right' (the cookies), but you are getting being threatened, abused, and you end up in a worse position then before.

It would be different if you volunteered to join an organisation that took a certain amount of money of you, so long as you could leave and actually had a reasonable choice to go to if you did leave (which is not the situation with states).

But I was born here, I had no choice in the matter. I look around, I cannot see a place that is better, some are better in certain ways, but none are better then any other in all ways. As such I am under no obligation to the government or state. If they wish to do something, that is their choice, if they want to give me something, I will take it. But that does not make me obligated to pay them when they use force to take what I do not give it voluntarily.

You are never under any obligation to any state or government, unless you make a deliberate choice to be so.

Rather you should take what they offer and expect more, but offer them as little as possible if anything. States/governments are oppression, they force themselves on you, that makes them obligated to you, not vise versa.

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 01:11 PM
For every right there is a duty. It would be a duty to pay to the tax collector if you derive any rights from the tax collector.
Here, I think, is what ultimately the question. And I think this is what needs to be addressed.

I'm not even saying we have an obligation to our fellow citizens or workers, but we do have an obligation to one's self. And if we do, the state is the vehicle to promote that self-interest. No?

Do we have the obligation to the state for our continued maintenance, enjoying safe living condition from invasion, insuring that water and food is safe, medicine is checked? First and foremost, we have an obligation to our own self-interest. And what does that self-interest consists of? The above. It is in our interest that we don't drink poison, that we aren't bombed while several thousand feet in the air, that we have our livelihood safe from sabotage.

If so, then a form of taxation in which these services can be provided is justified. And the question is, do we have an obligation to pay our taxes knowing that it has provided a way to continue our self-interest? Taxation is a self-interested system.

The only way we can say no to it, is if we also agree that we don't have an obligation to ourselves.

And now to my question again. How does it differ then from the gunman ready to hurt us if we don't pay up? If we all don't pay the taxes, we lose the services that protect us. If we don't pay the gunman, then we lose the edge that protect us. If we don't pay the taxman, all services will be taken away, chaos ensues, leading to all kinds of problems and finally death. If we don't pay the gunman, he pulls the trigger and death comes.

Guys, you have to think of paying taxes as a collective event. That is, by "not paying the taxes" I mean all of us at once, and as one, not paying the taxes. The state is the gunman, ready to pull the trigger.

[Purple]

A criminal with low morals would use his capital gain to achieve greater individual pleasure, but with taxation the capital would go in many systems to education, welfare, health care, etc. This of course varies between the countries. In the US I wouldnt feel to happy about paying taxes as it all goes to sending people to their deaths with fancy equipment to kill "Muslims".

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Chrysalis+--> (Chrysalis)
Originally posted by rouchambeau @ Sep 10 2006+ 01:11 PM)--> (rouchambeau @ Sep 10 2006 @ 01:11 PM)) For every right there is a duty. It would be a duty to pay to the tax collector if you derive any rights from the tax collector.[/b]Here, I think, is what ultimately the question. And I think this is what needs to be addressed. [/b]Yes to do away with the crap.


Originally posted by Chrysalis
I'm not even saying we have an obligation to our fellow citizens or workers, but we do have an obligation to one's self. And if we do, the state is the vehicle to promote that self-interest. No?No! The state is the vehicle to promote the interests of the ruling class and in the current situation the wealthy as well. Yes the only possible justification for the states existence is that it looks after the individual, and it does to a limited extent, but not sufficiently.

Again, it would be different if we could choose to disassociate ourselves from the state, but we cannot. As such I reject it entirely.


Originally posted by Chrysalis
Do we have the obligation to the state for our continued maintenance, enjoying safe living condition from invasion, insuring that water and food is safe, medicine is checked? First and foremost, we have an obligation to our own self-interest. And what does that self-interest consists of? The above. It is in our interest that we don't drink poison, that we aren't bombed while several thousand feet in the air, that we have our livelihood safe from sabotage.No! Yes we look after our own self interest, but that does not create an obligation to the state. The state forces it self on to use, that creates an obligation on it. It would of course be different (as I keep saying) if we actually could disassociate ourselves from all states. Which of course we cannot.

Let me ask you a question, do we have an obligation to the state for preventing us from looking at pornography, preventing us from using some drugs, but not others, preventing consensual sexual acts, for not recognising not "normal" relationship? Do we have an obligation to the state for it shooting our fellow citizens for no reason except that they are black and holding a wallet, for harassing us because we look different, for destroying or allowing our natural environment to be destroyed? Do we have an obligation to them? I say no.


Originally posted by Chrysalis
If so, then a form of taxation in which these services can be provided is justified. And the question is, do we have an obligation to pay our taxes knowing that it has provided a way to continue our self-interest? Taxation is a self-interested system.See above answer. We have no choice in the matter, that is the point. It is not in my self-interest to be imprisoned if I fail to pay my taxes.


Originally posted by Chrysalis
The only way we can say no to it, is if we also agree that we don't have an obligation to ourselves.We do have an obligation to ourselves, but that does not translate to an obligation to the state simply because it provides us with something. If a stranger on the street hands you $100, are you obligated to them?


Originally posted by Chrysalis
And now to my question again. How does it differ then from the gunman ready to hurt us if we don't pay up? If we all don't pay the taxes, we lose the services that protect us. If we don't pay the gunman, then we lose the edge that protect us. If we don't pay the taxman, all services will be taken away, chaos ensues, leading to all kinds of problems and finally death. If we don't pay the gunman, he pulls the trigger and death comes.If we do not pay taxes, we are imprisoned, we have violence used against us. The services you talk about can be provided by others, the state is not necessary or desirable. Mutual aid and community can provide us with everything we need. Our taxes pay for war and oppression, the go towards keeping the rich from loosing their wealth, to arm the police and army, to crush dissent. I think I would be happy to loose those "services".


[email protected]
Guys, you have to think of paying taxes as a collective event. That is, by "not paying the taxes" I mean all of us at once, and as one, not paying the taxes. The state is the gunman, ready to pull the trigger. And like the gunman, the state is a thief and a robber, even if it offers us a cookie. It is oppressive and dictatorial, it is parentilistic. Fuck the state, and fuck the 'gunman' too.



Purple
A criminal with low morals would use his capital gain to achieve greater individual pleasure, but with taxation the capital would go in many systems to education, welfare, health care, etc. This of course varies between the countries. In the US I wouldnt feel to happy about paying taxes as it all goes to sending people to their deaths with fancy equipment to kill "Muslims".Can you choose where your taxes go? No you can't. Refuse to pay your taxes, they will use it for anything they want. Taxation will pay for that fancy equipment you oppose, it will pay for the police to beat you up at the next protest, it will pay for the police to harass you because you are black or poor or just different. Your money, your resources, your time would be better used to set up community schools, hospitals and mutual aid schemes. Fuck the state.

[midnight marauder]

Here, I think, is what ultimately the question. And I think this is what needs to be addressed.

Agreed.


I'm not even saying we have an obligation to our fellow citizens or workers, but we do have an obligation to one's self. And if we do, the state is the vehicle to promote that self-interest. No?

No. The point of the formation of the state, in the classical terms of the state being a mere social contract, maybe indeed to preserve our obligations to ourselves, that is, to protect the "rights" we agree to believe we have. But one we, as materialists, step outside of natural rights theory and back into the real world, we realize that the state has taken on a completely different form. Depending on who you are, this can happen for a near infinite reasons (capital, for example). The reasons aren't particularly important for this discussion, but the aftermath of them is. The state as we know it in effect becomes an agent much like apathy maybe's definition: an entity that exists to serve those who are in charge of it.

Even if it's creators or leaders don't want it that way. It's the very nature of the organizational structure.

That said, I think it'd be fair to say (or at least debatable) that although the idea of the state may at first be to protect our own intrests as people, and as a population, there's never been a government that actually did so. And as communists and anarchists, I'm confident that we've all dedicated a good portion of our time to understanding it is that unless we judge them relative to eachother, the current forms of government throughout the world pretty much universally suck by this defnition.

But continuning the debate on the origional statement of the state existing for individual's interest, the social contract comes with a lot of significant problems.

The first one, which apathy did a great job of discussing, is that as humans, we, obviously, cannot choose where we are born. And since we cannot choose where were born, unless we establish our own, we cannot choose to enter a social contract. A social contract is forced on us, based on where we are in the world, and as such, it isn't really a contract at all. I didn't sign up to live in the United States, to obey it's laws or agree with it's opolicies. In addition, if I'm underaged, lower or middle class, or have social or financial ties to my country (or any number of other reason), I really can't choose to leave the contract. So what obligation do I have to it? This is especially true when you take into account colonialism, imperialism, and globalisation. A good example of this force off the top of my head is Palestine. Do the Palestinians have any obligation to the government of Isreal? Jordan? Syria? Egpyt?

A state can never exert justly its ability to tax me simply by virtue of me being born within or being unable to leave its arbitrary borders.


Do we have the obligation to the state for our continued maintenance, enjoying safe living condition from invasion, insuring that water and food is safe, medicine is checked? First and foremost, we have an obligation to our own self-interest. And what does that self-interest consists of? The above. It is in our interest that we don't drink poison, that we aren't bombed while several thousand feet in the air, that we have our livelihood safe from sabotage.

I think we both know that the state never provides any of those things in the real world. In the case of protection from war, I'm not quite sure how possible it is to prevent that in all cases. However, hypothetically, if the state did provide that, who asked them to? I certainly did that. Part of the reason leftists oppose governments as we know them is because they remove those responsibilities form the people. And if that's the case, it's it really wise to trust these responsibilities with the minority who hold positions of power in a society? Do they not have an obligation to act in ways that benefit themselves first and formost as well?


If so, then a form of taxation in which these services can be provided is justified.

And in the real world, we all understand that although it would be wonderful if it did, these things aren't all the government spends money on. War, prisons, police, propaganda, politics, etc. are all paid for with our taxes, as Comrade Purple pointed out in the example of the United States.


If we don't pay the taxman, all services will be taken away, chaos ensues, leading to all kinds of problems and finally death.


Guys, you have to think of paying taxes as a collective event.

Taxation is something forced onto us for arbitrary and illegitimate reasons. If I don't pay them (hypothetically, since I'm underaged and don't pay them in the sense of this writing :rolleyes:) I'm sent to jail, to rot in a miserable existance (paid for with everyone elses' money). The government can and does pull the trigger on anyone who doesn't oblige. Is this really what we ought be sending our money off to?

Not to mention, just like apathy said, the state is certainly not the only way an individual can acquire these services. That is, after all, the entire point of communism and anarchism, is it not?






edit: In fact, I'd probably feel more obligated to pay the gunman as fellow prole! :lol:

[gilhyle]

THe concept of moral obligation as something you 'have' /possess of your nature is hardly sustainable anymore.

The only kind of moral obligation that can credibly be ascribed to you is the one you ascribe to yourself as an aspiration.

Thus you can aspire to be the kind of person who happily pays his taxes; you can aspire to be the kind of person who respects the lumpenised criminal.

You can of course, just pay when you have to cos you are forced to by others.

But maybe there is no difference between being forced by others to pay on a pleasure/pain threat and forcing yourself to want to pay so as to define yourself in a a way that quiets your dark, divided heart.

What always gets me about these kinda questions is the assumption that an individual is a coherent project.

[Chrysalis]

First off, thanks for the replies. I apologize for being irregular in coming here. I hope in the future that I can be active on a regular basis again.

To apathy maybe, Juice, and to gilhyle:


Yes to do away with the crap.
Yes! Let's do away with crap. And let me now re-state my opinion or thesis on the matter: What it all boils down to is: there really isn't any fundamental differences between giving our money to the gunman and to the taxman, if you think about it. In both situations, we are tying to protect our self-interest. If we cannot find anything at all that obligates us to pay our taxes, then all grass are cut by the same mower, isn't it? To both the gunman and the taxman, we MUST PAY UP. This is all I'm trying to get to now.

First to gilhyle: yes, I am abondoning my use of the word "moral". I'd like to now re-state my thesis by saying that, in the eyes of a revolutionary, there is no difference between paying the gunman and paying for the services we need to protect ourselves.

So, let me say, my bad for using the word "state": call it any other name, a rose by any name is a thorny event. But there is something that holds the individuals parts. Whatever name you choose, there is something that must carry out the management of a city, a town, where the revolutionaries must co-habitate. And so, it has some things to do that require money. Who is going to pay for the street lights? The public transportation that must take the laborers from their home to their work and back? I am putting this really crudely and elementary.

You admit that we have an obligation to keep ouselves alive and well: okay, so we agree. So, we pay for the medical care, the drugs, the street lights, the water purification, the disease prevention: SO WE PAY. Period. This payment, call it whatever name you like, don't call it "taxes", still you admit we pay for the services. So, if we don't pay, we lose these services that protect us. So, again let me re-state my badly worded argument: we have an obligation to ourselves, so we must have these services and we must pay for it, and if we don't we lose these services that make us well: we expose ourselves to diseases and death and poisoning.

So, my new and improved thesis is: we HAVE TO PAY in order to protect ourselves. In retrospect then, there really isn't any fundamental differences between paying for services to protect ourselves, and paying the ransom money to protect ourselves. This is what a revolutionary does away with and its consequence.