[ExI] The Circle of Coercion/was Re: Friedman and negative income tax

Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com
Thu May 7 02:18:28 UTC 2009

2009/5/6 Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>  I have the same
>> choice if I don't like the taxes in the state where I live: I could
>> change the way I work or I could move, although that might be
>> inconvenient, costly or impossible.
> ### Sure. But, is it good? I am sure you don't think that
> intentionally limiting choices available to people is generally a good
> idea. Taxation is a net reduction of choices: compared to a voluntary
> system, it is almost impossible to use taxation to achieve a net
> increase in the range of choices available to participants. Taxes
> almost always make the taxed worse off - yet you seem to attribute
> legitimacy to them, you seem to identify with their imposition,
> although you reject other limitations of your choices (e.g. imposed by
> "crime syndicates"). Both taxes and "protection" paid to crime bosses
> make you worse off - yet you support the former and reject the latter.
> Why?

The criminal syndicate does no good for anyone (other than themselves)
and no-one wants them. Rather like a corrupt or totalitarian

If people were all stupid and governments were all grasping and
irresponsible they would just vote to have no taxes and everything
funded by printing money. But they vote to be taxed. How do you
propose changing this? It seems you're stuck with the same solution as
the Eastern European communists, who thought they were creating the
good society and had to protect it by prosecuting anyone who posed any
threat to the system.

I'm writing this from economic freedom-loving, personal freedom-hating
Singapore. I can't think of anywhere in the world at the moment where
both personal and economic freedom is held in equally high regard.

Stathis Papaioannou

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list