Taxes: The Price We Pay For Civilization

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society," said legendary Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. As students of Buck v. Bell could tell you, Holmes had a habit of being monstrously wrong, but if he's right about taxes and civilization, it's certainly worth asking whether we're getting what we pay for.

Approximately 1.06 minutes. Written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie.

[Mastikator]

If this is the so called civilization I paid for then I want my money back.

[ReligionOfNice]

Taxes are the price some people pay for an uncivilized society.

[Mastikator]

@Dpaladinx Uhh, what does "we need taxes for roads" have to do with big government and big buisness?
A mercenary force isn't the only non-public option to police, ever heard of neighbourhood watch? Police could be handled by the people.

There are more options than simply a business having monopoly on a service or product, or a state having monopoly. Think outside the box a little.

[InTheEndIWasRight]

Taxes are the price we are forced to pay for the state, not civilization.

[nomadcapitalist]

Get out of the US. Less arrogance in some places. Countries that don't think they rule the world.

[libertyfizz]

@HBSchool I think the National Flood Insurance program is horrible. It encourages people to build in flood zones. If you look at it most of the beneficiaries of flood insurance are people who build million dollar mansions on beach front property. The tax payer is expected to subsidize development that should have never occurred. A lack of NFIP would actually have helped to keep more wildlife areas wild and reduced storm water pollution as well. It is a builders subsidy.

[Dpaladinx]

I'm more of a person that doesn't enjoy both big government AND big businesses/corporations screwing my life over at the same time. I consider myself to be an economic moderate.

But seriously, there should be some taxes for funding education, public transportation, etc. However, taxes should not be used by politicians for their own personal gains.

[Dpaladinx]

I'm trying to use reason here. The purpose of government is to protect an established society created by the people. According to John Locke, having a government is necessary to protect the rights of the people, which is why we have the police in public hands (even though this is handled in the state level) and the military (which is handled in a federal level). However, Locke opposes a theocratic or authoritarian government where government controls every aspect of life (i.e. Saudi Arabia).

[libertyfizz]

@quizerry Whatever happened to personal responsibility. Why should I be forced to pay for another person placing themselves in harms way. That is their choice and if I volunteered to help them out that would be my choice. But the disconnect happens when they expect me to pay at the point of a gun for their bad choice. And subsidizing a bad choice is also done by force. Some places are just too dangerous for development. Why on earth would you want to subsidize it?

[nomadcapitalist]

And the Post Office. Excellent job on all.

[ImSoIncrediblySilly]

NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION!, ie.if you don't pay taxes, you should not be allowed to vote.

[libertyfizz]

@Joe402 Corporatist is neither right or left it is where government uses its authority to help corporations maintain monopoly status. Regulations is usually where it starts. Just look at farmers A bill named Food Safety will actually hurt organic and small farmers and favor big producers. But who could be against food safety right. If you haven't seen Food Inc. it is eyeopening. I doubt we will come to the same conclusions. But the one reason for food production consolidation is regs.

[rationalegoist]

If the government owned and operated businesses - not whole industries mind you, that would be a central economic authority and therefore a violation of individual autonomy - but specific businesses that operated within the market like any other business, with the profits going to fund the state, then the state could, coupled with it staying in it's proper place of only funding police, military, and courts, be funded completely voluntaryistically.

[Dpaladinx]

@Mastikator

Big-business and big-government aren't really the same thing.

You do need taxes to maintain roads and have a police force and firefighting. A police force in private hands is more of something like a mercenary force.

Of course, something like those are handled in state level.

[truvelocity]

@anarchylogic We are on the same page. I agree that there are arbitrary taxes that are theft and tax that is justified for the greater good at the same time. Some people take it too far and end up in prison for tax evasion. That's a whole nother level.

[Dpaladinx]

Well, some TAXES are necessary. I do admit that too much taxes can be a bad thing and can lead to big government. But if we have NO taxes, then what is the purpose of government then? Who will maintain law and order?

[grabir]

If you do not pay taxes, then the IRS will take your home, your land, your property and auction it off. Now that is civilized!

[AtlasFolder]

Classic photo at 0:47 - Rosalynn Carter with John Wayne Gacy. He was already a serial killer at the time of that photo. Not that she or the Secret Service could know, but still classic.

[tkwelge]

@Dpaladinx You assume that the public police serves "the people?" I disagree. The police will serve whoever is paying them. In the case of police privatization, the government will be the ones paying the checks. I doubt it could be worse than what we have now.

[MarkG]

@megagagnon1 no, unless you plan on vouchering all of the public school children into private school, at an insane increase in taxpayer waste, vouchers are not feasible. They do not improve the quality of education for all citizens, just the few that test out of the failing school. A good solution includes bringing public education up.