[ExI] Is there a potential libertarianism / democracy tension?

[Adrian Tymes]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> A good way to find out what people want is to allow them the option of not paying taxes or not obeying various rules and regulations.

(Using "you" generically here, not specifically referring to Dan.)

And here lies the problem.  It's almost always about making other people
pay taxes and obey rules & regulations.  The compromise is that you have
to do it too.

Consider if nobody else had to pay for car insurance.  Would it make sense
for you to carry enough insurance to cover your repairs and the other person's,
in case of accident?  Of course not, unless you happen to have that much
money lying around for general emergency purposes anyway.  So no one but
the rich would do it.

Consider if it was completely voluntary whether or not to limit what you dump
in the river.  Almost no factory in America would voluntarily comply - and the
majority of those that did, would either be those not near a river, or
with little
to dump.  And there goes everyone else's clean drinking water.

Imagine getting kicked out onto the street, because thugs wanted to crash
in your house for a bit - and then move on to the next house after they've
trashed it.  They, of course, recognize no rules but their own.  Why should
any of your neighbors help you - it's not their problem, until the thugs have
actually moved into each one of their houses in turn.  If this seems far
fetched, imagine your reaction if thugs did this to your neighbor's house 3
houses down - then 2, then 1.  Not your problem, right?  So when they come
for you, it's not your neighbors' problem either.

Most other people who would affect you in the proposed voluntary tax &
regulation system are as uninterested in the welfare of others as, or more so
than, you.

> Now, regarding taxes, the funny thing, yes, most people pay with little griping. But the examples of non-payers have their property seized or being hauled off to jail seems fairly telling. Why not, if you believe most will pay anyhow, remove the the threat of this.

Because most people wouldn't pay if it was known that non-compliers get off
scot free.  Again, it is the bargain - the social contract - that
everyone has to
pitch in, that is the main thing suppressing rebellion here.  Jail is more about
enforcing that bargain - "how dare you try to skip out on what the rest of us
are doing" - than about the tax itself.

Consider why Warren Buffet complains about the low tax rates of himself and
his kin - yet he does not simply voluntarily pay more.  It's perfectly possible
for him to pay more, and he clearly views it as wrong that he does not, yet he
doesn't.  Why?  Because it is not fair that all the other billionaires
get to pay
so little.  When they have to pay more, he will too.

In fact, I wonder if a party that promoted the social contract as its
main issue,
with "restoring fairness to America" being its main slogan, might do well.  It
would likely take on anti-corruption as a strong secondary theme - and, well,
"cut fraud, waste, and corruption" always sells well.  Granted, single issue
parties tend to do poorly because they haven't thought through other things
people care about, but I wonder if a sufficiently nuanced platform could be
built from this as the main issue.