/biz/ - Business & Finance

We know that no tax is fair, whether progressive or flat and proportional. How can theft and robbery be fair? The “best” tax is always the lowest tax — yet even the lowest tax is still a tax. The “best,” because lowest tax is a head or poll tax, where every person pays the same absolute amount of taxes. Since even the poorest person must be able to pay this amount, such a tax must be low. But even a head tax is still theft, and there is nothing “fair” about it. A head tax does not treat everyone equally and installs “equality before the law.” For something happens with the tax revenue. The salaries of all state employees and dependents (like pensioners and welfare recipients) are paid out of tax revenue, for instance. Accordingly, state employees and dependents pay no taxes at all. Rather, their entire net-income (after payment of their head tax) comes out of tax-payments and they are thus (on net) tax-consumers living off income and wealth stolen from others: the tax-producers. What is fair about one group of people living parasitically on, and at the expense of, another group of people?

Given that taxes are theft, i.e., a moral “wrong,” it cannot be wrong to refuse to pay thieves or to lie to them regarding one’s taxable income or assets. This does not mean that it is prudent or wise to do so and not to pay taxes — after all the state is the “coldest of all monsters,” as Nietzsche has put it, and it can ruin your life or even destroy you if you do not obey its commands.

>>50644997
If taxes are theft, then, from the point of view of justice, there should be no taxes and no tax policy at all. Every discussion about the goals of tax policy and tax reform is a discussion among thieves or advocates of theft, who do not care about justice. They care about theft. There is debate and dispute among them about who should be taxed and how high and what is to be done with the taxes, i.e., who should get how much of the stolen loot. But all thieves and all beneficiaries of theft tend to agree on one thing: the greater the amount of loot and the lower the cost of collecting it, the better are things for them. In fact, this is what all Western democracies practice today: to choose tax rates and forms of taxation, which maximize tax revenue. All current discussions about tax reform, in France, in Germany, in the US and elsewhere: discussions about whether certain forms of taxes such as wealth and inheritance taxes should be introduced or abolished, whether income should be taxed progressively or proportionally, whether capital gains should be taxed as income or not, whether or not indirect taxes such as the VAT should be substituted for direct taxes, etc. etc., and whether the rates of these taxes then should be raised or cut — they are never discussions about justice. They are not motivated by any principled opposition to taxation, but by the desire to make taxation more efficient, i.e., to maximize tax revenue. Every tax reform that is not, at a minimum, “revenue neutral,” is considered a failure. And only reforms that increase tax revenue are deemed a “success.”

I must ask again: How can anyone consider this “fair?” Of course, from the point of view of tax-consumers this is all “good.” But from the viewpoint of tax-producers, i.e., of those who actually pay taxes, it is certainly not “good,” but “worse than bad.”

>>50645008
Every person, rich or poor, should be treated the same before the law. There are rich people, who are rich without having defrauded or stolen from anyone. They are rich, because they have worked hard, they have saved diligently, they have been productive, and they have shown entrepreneurial ingenuity, often for several family-generations. Such people should not only be left alone, but they should be praised as heroes. And there are rich people, mostly from the class of political leaders in control of the state-apparatus and from the state-connected elites of banking and big business, who are rich, because they have been directly engaged in, or indirectly benefitted from, confiscation, theft, trickery and fraud. Such people should not be left alone, but instead be condemned and despised as gangsters. The same applies to poor people. There are poor people, who are honest people, and therefore should be left alone. They may not be heroes, but they deserve our respect. And there are poor people who are crooks, and who should be treated as crooks, regardless of their “poverty.”

One last remark on the economic effects of taxation: Every tax is a redistribution of wealth and income. Wealth and income is forcibly taken from their owners and producers and transferred to people who did not own this wealth and did not produce this income. The future accumulation of wealth and the production of income are thus discouraged and the confiscation and consumption of existing wealth and income is encouraged. As a result, society will be poorer. And as for the effect of the eternally popular, egalitarian proposal of taxing the “rich” to give to the “poor” in particular: Such a scheme does not reduce or alleviate poverty but, quite to the contrary, it increases poverty. It reduces the incentive to stay or become rich and be productive, and it increases the incentive to stay or become poor and be un-productive.

>>50644987
lol dumbass, taxation isn't theft, who will bomb the sandniggers children ?

>>50644987
You're free leave if you hate it here so much.

Random Network, the next chain link

>>50644987
Ok, Wesley snipes

>>50645040
this, finally, a high IQ response, it's so fucking obvious,
if you and your gang of niggers are repeatedly extorting at gunpoint a local shop, it's HIS fault (the owner) for not abandoning everything that tied him to this area, and go live elsewhere (for example in somalia)

>>50645026
>>50645040
>>50645085
>>50645091
you are not even real

Governments are fundamentally just particularly effective organized crime gangs. Unfortunately, well organized groups that are able to steal wealth from people are able to outcompete the groups that do not engage in theft.

>>50644987
of course its theft
so what's the alternative?

>>50644987
But what about maintaining the roads, potholes and shit like that?

alright lets thinktank an alternative to taxation since it's undeniably theft

who has any ideas?

>>50645970
It would be understandable if your tax money actually went towards things that benefit you but they don’t. They’re used to line the pockets of politicians

>>50645970
Few care about the ways taxes are used for good, and in an idealistic frictionless vacuum they would only be used for good. They are not. Tax revenues are misappropriated and spent foolishly even considering how they are spent free of any bias, and you don't get to decide whether the taxes you pay are used to pave roads or are used to buy bombs or fund gender reassignment of criminals in prison or fund going after churches and other religious establishments/religions in whole or in part. Much like how demtards preach lgbtomgwtfbbq rights and then keep whole sects of the population in a plantation-esque system or how republitards preach small government and gun rights and then expand the government and fund entities that are antithetical to firearm ownership or are complicit in passing legislation that erodes 2A rights. It's all fake and gay and if you get too loud about how fake and gay it is or refuse to participate in something that is fake and gay, you get fucked with, up to and including being thrown in prison or killed. Ain't life grand?

>>50645995
Send everyone that pays taxes an itemized bill of how their tax revenues are spent, every fiscal year, and give them the ability to opt-out of their tax dollars being spent on things they're ideologically opposed to for any reason so long as their burden is paid. Blood eagle in a public square any official that uses or orders the use of tax revenues for a purpose the payer didn't ideologically approve of.

>>50646042
>so long as their burden is paid
how do you determine their burden?

>>50646032
I can see that I have misunderstood this whole thing. Our leaders need to be arrested.

>>50646101
The exact same way it's determined now, mr. glowman. Tax brackets based on income level. I don't give a shit about paying taxes, society is built with them and I enjoy the many benefits it provides. I do not enjoy my tax dollars being spent on things I am ideologically opposed to, and feel it would be a better system if I could opt out of my taxes being used on anything I don't agree with. Frankly an opt-in system for what purpose they're used for would be most preferable to me. If I could elect that all my tax revenues be spent on building roads or providing healthcare or feeding the homeless or anything else that is a net good, rather than them being spent on fucking retarded bullshit I do not agree with, I would have zero qualms with paying them.
>hurr then some sectors wouldn't receive tax revenues and we have to pay for gender reassignment surgeries for felons and war criminals!
Tough shit, cut expenses to match revenue earned for given expenditure brackets and classes. Or get blood eagled if you try to fudge it. I see no problem with this.

>>50645995
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEmb8ugs79Y

taxes are a communist tool used to punish various classes of people the state doesnt like. all states are communist kleptocracies. everyone involved in running a state must be slaughtered brutally for the good of mankind

>>50646105
not just arrested. arrested and publicly sexually tortured and executed in the most painful way possible.

>>50646121
ok, so the government steals money from you, the same way they steal money now. only you're allowed to opt out of your tax monies going to things you oppose.

it's still theft. but at least you can decide where your stolen money goes. alright, not bad.

i think the end result would be things like roads getting more money then ever before while shit few people like will end up getting minimum funding. it would provide the public a way of voting with their dollar, almost a form of direct democracy. and the various government services would have to compete to provide value for dollar to entice people not to opt out. and the bad government services, such as the nsa for example, would have to stop doing bad things or risk being defunded.

i like it.

>>50646121
This isn't to say I don't pay my taxes, I do, as I would rather not be thrown into prison or murdered. In fact I pay someone a hefty sum to go over my finances and file my taxes in such a manner that I pay the least amount possible, because this is the greatest act of protest I can muster in this current system without being thrown in prison or killed. In fact, I also think the IRS is wildly underfunded, and has been forced into a situation where the wealthiest can avoid the most if not nearly or literally all taxes, because they're harder to go after than the common man.

>>50646188
Precisely. If I must be robbed, choosing how that money is used would make being robbed less of a burden than when I cannot choose. It would give me the power to directly vote with my money, which is simply the distilled form of power, which enfranchises me as a common individual rather than disenfranchising me and my peers. I honestly fail to see an issue with it, and do not trust anyone that would attempt to say otherwise as a rule.

>>50646193
so here's another issue you've identified. taxation is complicated, which allows for sneaky tricks to avoid paying what is owed. the wealthiest can afford to hire people to find and exploit these tricks and dodge taxes.

either the irs needs more funding to go after the wealthiest individuals exploiting the complicated tax system, or the taxation needs to be simplified to give less room for exploits to be found.

the issue with relying on the irs to go after wealthy people exploiting taxation complications is that the irs is corrupt. all government agencies are corrupt there is no avoiding that, all power is corrupted always. there is a risk they use their funding to just go after small people who made honest mistakes on their complicated taxes instead of going after the wealthy who will bribe them to back off from prosecuting their exploits.

if taxes were simple, as simple as possible. to the point where you didn't even have to pay someone to go over your finances at all. then the wealthy would be left with fewer exploits, and the irs would require fewer resources to go over everything.

i think taxes are made more complicated then they need to be on purpose specifically to allow the wealthiest people to find exploits to avoid taxes.

>>50646279
and/or you make a computer go over everyones taxes, soft ai algorithms computing everything to get everyone the lowest legal taxes, no need to hire an accountant and impossible to exploit, because the ai taxation algorithms will just go over everything. replacing millions of accountants with a single piece of software.

if taxes are so complicated that they're impossible for ai algorithms to go over them then make them simpler.

of course you'd have to trust that exploits and loopholes weren't written into the algorithms. so it would have to be open source. and perhaps a taxation court with an appeal process and accountant lawyers.

>>50646279
>i think taxes are made more complicated then they need to be on purpose specifically to allow the wealthiest people to find exploits to avoid taxes.
Correct 1,000,000%, they should be simplified, and by "the IRS needs more funding" I don't mean "enough funding to commit widespread fuckery on behalf of the ruling or elected class", rather I mean "enough money to do their damn jobs which is demonstrably not the case in the current state of affairs". They literally threw out 30 something million tax filings last year as they couldn't process them and only issued refunds for those that complained enough and got through the red tape and stonewalling well enough. We shouldn't exist in a system where those worth exhorbitant amounts of money are almost never audited, whereas those in the middle to upper-middle income brackets are targeted as they're easiest to go after.

>>50646346
so the poorest who can't afford a taxation accountant lawyer to go over their appeal will be provided taxation lawyers through tax dollars. provided people don't decide to defund the taxation lawyers through opt outs but why would they.

i didn't think it would be this easy to fix the problems with taxation and also end up restoring the balance of power between the people and the government in the process. took two assholes on /biz/ 45 minutes. problem solved. you're welcome humanity.

really shows how stupid and/or malevolent the people in power truly are that they can't or won't figure it out when it's so obvious.

>>50646422
It's more profitable to not "figure it out" and you're right, two dipshits on a mongolian throat singing enthusiasts business personals section can figure it out roughly within the span of an hour. It's the same way it's easier to feed people sugar and carbohydrates to get them calories than it is to feed them meat and vegetables to make them healthy and fed. It's the same reason why it's more profitable to sell pills to keep AIDS in remission than it is to cure it outright which is possible and has already been done multiple times, and not with harebrained "rape a virgin" bullshit that does not work at all. It's all greed the whole way down, and until that changes taxes won't stop sucking dick and me and you won't be able to avoid it without going to prison or being killed if either of us stood by our principles.

Have a good night fren, this has been fun.

>>50645091
This but unironically

>>50646193
>the wealthiest can avoid the most if not nearly or literally all taxes
Hi. Welcome.
You are here forever. You can never leave.
Enjoy your stay.

>>50646482
I'm also not so stupid as to not realize incentivizing being wealthy enough to keep most of what you create has some net good effects on a society. But too much of a good thing is still bad. And I've already been here forever fren, I have no intentions of leaving.

>>50646450

perhaps in a future thread we'll solve world hunger, end all wars, and balance the economy. should only take a couple of hours

>>50646571
Eat babies, make politicians fight them instead of their constituents, put a hard cap on CEO/C-Suite salaries. Did it in minutes. Again, the hard part is never finding a solution, it's having a society in which implementing the solutions is more profitable or preferable than the alternative.

>>50646628
i assume you're joking about some of that but i'm going to address it anyways even though you weren't serious.

eating babies is evil and cruel and would turn humanity into some sick and twisted abomination that isn't worth keeping around. we need to maintain at least a convincing illusion of having the moral high ground or society and the social contract will degenerate and decay into some apocalyptic mad max scenario where every man is out for himself and only the cruel survive. basically back to the stone age, creating a world no one wants to live in is a solution worse then the problem.

the country that sends politicians to fight its wars will lose against the country that sends a thousand soldiers for every politician you have. but if instead the politicians have to lead from the front lines instead of replacing the constituents that still doesn't solve the issue since many politicians are just puppets anyways and not the actual people running things. whoever runs the united states could easily order biden to the front lines in iraq, biden is just their disposable tool, a replaceable figurehead.

capping ceo salaries yeah i guess that one makes sense. look at elon musk his entire fortune is tied to tesla and spacex and he has left himself no golden parachute whatsoever in some idealistic notion of going down with the ship, mandate that so every ceo has to go down with the ship and call it the captain kirk law.

how to create a society where implementing the solutions is more profitable or preferable then the alternative though i dunno. thats a hard one

>>50644987
>>50644997
>>50645008
>>50645013
That's enough bad goyposting for today.

In order to explain the emergence of barter nothing more than the assumption of a narrowly defined self-interest is required. If and insofar as man prefers more choices and goods to fewer, he will choose barter and division of labor over self-sufficiency.

The emergence of money from barter follows from the same narrow self-interest. If and insofar as man is integrated in a barter economy and prefers a higher to a lower standard of living, he will choose to select and support a common media of exchange. In selecting a money he can overcome the fundamental restriction imposed on exchange by a barter economy, i.e., that of requiring the existence of a double coincidence of wants. With money his possibilities for exchange widen. Every good becomes exchangeable for every other, independent of double coincidences or imperfect divisibilities. And with this widened exchangeability the value of each and every good in his possession increases.

Since man is integrated in an exchange economy, self-interest compels him to look out for particularly marketable goods which have desirable money properties such as divisibility, durability, recognizability, portability and scarcity, and to demand such goods not for their own sake but for the sake of employing them as mediums of exchange. And it is in his self-interest to choose that commodity as his medium of exchange that is also used as such most commonly by others. In fact, it is the function of money to facilitate exchange, to widen the range of exchange possibilities, and to thereby increase the value of one's goods (insofar as they are perceived as integrated in an exchange economy). Thus, the more widely a commodity is used as money, the better it will perform its monetary function. Driven by no more than narrow self-interest, man will always prefer a more general and, if possible, a universal medium of exchange to a less general or non-universal one.

For the more common the money, the wider the market in which one is integrated, the more rational one's value and cost calculations (from the viewpoint of someone desiring economic integration and wealth maximization), and the greater the benefits that one can reap from division of labor.1

Empirically, of course, the commodity that was once chosen as the best-because-most-universal-money is gold. Without government coercion gold would again be selected for the foreseeable future as the commodity best performing the function of money. Self-interest would lead everyone to prefer gold—as a universally used medium of exchange—to any other money. To the extent that every individual perceives himself and his possessions as integrated into an exchange economy, he would prefer accounting in terms of gold rather than in terms of any other money, because gold's universal acceptance makes such accounting the in most complete expression of one's opportunity costs, and hence serves as the best guide in one's attempts to maximize wealth. All other monies would be driven out of use quickly, because anything less than a strictly universal and international money such as gold—national or regional monies, that is—would contradict the very purpose of having money in the first place. Money has been invented by self-interested man in order to increase his wealth by integrating himself into an ever-widening and ultimately universal market. In the way of the pursuit of self-interest, national or regional monies would quickly be out-competed and supplanted by gold, because only gold makes economic integration complete and markets world-wide, thereby fulfilling the ultimate function of money as a common medium of exchange.2

The emergence of money, of increasingly better monies, and finally of one universal money, gold sets productive energies free that previously remained frustrated and idle due to double-coincidence-of-wants-restrictions in the process of exchanges (such as the existence of competing monies with freely fluctuating exchange rates). Under barter the market for a producer's output is restricted to instances of double want coincidences. With all prices expressed in terms of gold the producer's market is all-encompassing, and demand takes effect unrestricted by any absence of double coincidences on a world-wide scale. Accordingly, production increases—and increases more with gold than with any other money. With increased production the value of money in turn rises; and the higher purchasing power of money reduces one's reservation demand for it, lowers one's effective rate of time preference (the originary rate of interest), and leads to increased capital formation. An upward spiraling process of economic development is set in motion.

This development creates the basis for the emergence of banks as specialized money-handling institutions. On the one hand, banks come forward to meet the increasing demand for the safekeeping, transporting, and clearing of money. On the other hand, they fulfill the increasingly important function of facilitating exchanges between capitalists (savers) and entrepreneurs (investors), actually making an almost complete division of labor between these roles possible. As institutions of deposit and in particular as savings and credit institutions, banks quickly assume the rank of nerve centers of an economy. Increasingly the spatial and temporal allocation and coordination of economic resources and activities takes place through the mediation of banks; and in facilitating such coordination the emergence of banks implies still another stimulus for economic growth.3

While it is in everyone's economic interest that there be only one universal money and only one unit of account, and man in his pursuit of wealth maximization will not stop until this goal is reached, it is contrary to such interest that there be only one bank or one monopolistic banking system. Rather, self-interest commands that every bank use the same universal money—gold—and that there then be no competition between different monies, but that free competition between banks and banking systems, all of which use gold, must exist. Only so long as free entry into banking exists will there be cost efficiency in this as in any other business; yet only as long as this competition concerns services rendered in terms of one and the same money commodity will free banking actually be able to fulfill the very function of money and banking, i.e., of facilitating economic integration rather than disintegration, of widening the market and expanding the division of labor rather than restricting them, of making value and cost accounting more rather than less rational, and hence of increasing rather than decreasing economic wealth. The notion of competition between monies is a contradictio in adjecto. Strictly speaking, a monetary system with rival monies of freely fluctuating exchange rates is still a system of (partial) barter, riddled with the problem of requiring double coincidences of wants in order for (some) exchanges to take place. The existence of such a system is dysfunctional of the very purpose of money.4 Freely pursuing his own self-interest, man would immediately abandon it—and it would be a fundamental misconception regarding the essence of money to think of the free market not only in terms of competing banks but also in terms of competitive monies.5 Competitive monies are not the outcome of free market actions but are invariably the result of coercion, of government imposed-obstacles placed in the path of rational economic conduct.

>>50645091
kek this.

you have rights, but you also have duties. a man complaining about a rationtal level of taxation is like a child crying because their mother made him share his icecream (that was bought with the only penny that the mother had) with his sister.

>>50646907
>Competitive monies are not the outcome of free market actions but are invariably the result of coercion, of government imposed-obstacles placed in the path of rational economic conduct.

[citation needed]

>>50646907
With free banking based on a universal gold standard emerging, the goal of achieving the most cost efficient solution to coordinating and facilitating interspatial and intertemporal exchanges within the framework of a universally integrated market is accomplished. Prices for the service of safekeeping, transporting and clearing money, as well as for advancing money in time-contracts would drop to their lowest possible levels under a regime of free entry. And since these prices would be expressed in terms of one universal money, they would truly reflect the minimum costs of providing market-integrative services.

Moreover, bank competition combined with the fact that money must emerge as a commodity—such as gold—which in addition to its value as money has a commodity value and thus cannot be produced without significant cost-expenditure, also provides the best possible safeguard against fraudulent banking.

As money depositing institutions, banks—much like other institutions depositing fungible commodities yet more so in the case of banks because of the special role of the commodity money—are tempted to issue "fake" warehouse receipts, i.e., notes of deposit not covered by real money, as soon as such banknotes have assumed the role of money substitutes and are treated by market participants as unquestionable equivalents of actually deposited real money. In this situation, by issuing fake or fiat banknotes that physically cannot be distinguished from genuine money substitutes, a bank can—fraudulently and at another's expense—increase its own wealth. It can directly purchase goods with such fake notes and thus enrich itself in the same way as any simple counterfeiter does. The bank's real wealth and the wealth of the early recipients of the money increases through these purchases, and at the same time and by the same action the wealth of those receiving the new money late or not at all decreases, due to the inflationary consequences of counterfeiting.

Or a bank can use such fiat money to expand its credit and earn interest on it. Once again a fraudulent income and wealth redistribution in the bank's favor takes place.6 Yet in addition, this time a boom-bust cycle is also set in motion: placed at a lowered interest rate, the newly granted credit causes increased investments and initially creates a boom that cannot be distinguished from an economic expansion; however, this boom must turn bust because the credit that stimulated it does not represent real savings but instead was created out of thin air. Hence, with the entire new and expanded investment structure under way, a lack of capital must arise that makes the successful completion of all investment projects systematically impossible and instead requires a contraction with a liquidation of previous malinvestments.7

Under the gold standard any bank or banking system (including a monopolistic one) would be constrained in its own inclination to succumb to such temptations by two requirements essential for successful counterfeiting. On the one hand, the banking public must not be suspicious of the trustworthiness of the bank—that is, its anti-fraud vigilance must be low—for otherwise a bank run would quickly reveal the committed fraud. And, on the other hand, the bank cannot inflate its notes at such a pace that the public loses confidence in the notes' purchasing power, reduces its reservation demand for them and flees instead towards "real" values, including real money, and thereby drives the counterfeiter into bankruptcy. Under a system of free banking, however, with no legal tender laws and gold as money, an additional constraint on potential bank fraud arises. For then every bank is faced with the existence of non-clients or clients of different banks.

If in this situation additional counterfeit money is brought into circulation by a bank, it must invariably reckon with the fact that the money may end up in non-clients' hands who demand immediate redemption, which the bank then would be unable to grant without at least a painful credit contraction. In fact, such a corrective contraction could only be avoided if the additional fiat money were to go exclusively into the cash reserves of the bank's own clients and were used by them exclusively for transactions with other clients. Yet since a bank would have no way of knowing whether or not such a specific outcome could be achieved, or how to achieve it, the threat of a following credit contraction would act as an inescapable economic deterrent to any bank fraud.8

The State and the Monopolization of Money and Banking

The present economic order is characterized by national monies instead of one universal money; by fiat money instead of a commodity such as gold; by monopolistic central banking instead of free banking; and by permanent bank fraud, and steadily repeated, income and wealth redistribution, permanent inflation and recurring business cycles as its economic counterparts, rather than 100 percent reserve banking with none of these consequences.

In complete contradiction, then, to man's self-interest of maximizing wealth through economic integration, different anti-economic interests prevailing over economic ones must be responsible for the emergence of the contemporary monetary order.

One can acquire and increase wealth either through homesteading, production and contractual exchange, or by expropriating and exploiting homesteaders, producers, or contractual exchangers. There are no other ways. Both methods are natural to mankind. Alongside an interest in producing and contracting there has always been an interest in non-productive and non-contractual property and wealth acquisitions.

And in the course of economic development, just as the former interest can lead to the formation of productive enterprises, firms and corporations, so can the latter lead to large-scale enterprises and bring about governments or states.9

The size and growth of a productive enterprise is constrained on one hand by voluntary consumer demand, and on the other by the competition of other producers that continuously forces each firm to operate with the lowest possible costs if it wishes to stay in business. For such an enterprise to grow in size, the most urgent consumer wants must be served in the most efficient ways. Nothing but voluntary consumer purchases support its size.

The constraints on the other type of institution—the state—are altogether different.10 For one thing, it is obviously absurd to say that its emergence and growth is determined by demand in the same sense as an economic firm. One cannot say by any stretch of the imagination that the homesteaders, the producers and the contractual exchangers who must surrender (part of) their assets to a state have demanded such a service. Instead, they are coerced into accepting it, and this is conclusive proof of the fact that the service is not at all in demand. On the other hand, the state is also not constrained in the same way by competition as is a productive firm. For unlike such a firm, the state must not keep its costs of operation at a minimum, but can operate at above-minimum costs, because it is able to shift its higher costs onto its competitors by taxing or regulating their behavior. Thus as a state emerges, then, it does so in spite of the fact that it is neither in demand nor efficient.

Instead of being constrained by cost and demand conditions, the growth of an exploiting firm is constrained by public opinion: non-productive and non-contractual property acquisitions require coercion, and coercion creates victims. It is conceivable that resistance can be lastingly broken by force in the case of one man (or a group of men) exploiting one or maybe two or three others (or a group of roughly the same size). It is inconceivable, however, to imagine that force alone can account for the breaking down of resistance in the actually familiar case of small minorities expropriating and exploiting populations ten, hundreds, or thousands of times their size. For this to happen a firm must have public support in addition to coercive force. A majority of the population must accept its operations as legitimate. This acceptance can range from active enthusiasm to passive resignation. But acceptance it must be in the sense that a majority must have given up the idea of actively or passively resisting any attempt to enforce non-productive and non-contractual property acquisitions. Instead of displaying outrage over such actions, of showing contempt for everyone who engages in them, and of doing nothing to help make them successful (not to mention actively trying to obstruct them), a majority must actively or passively support them. State-supportive public opinion must counterbalance the resistance of victimized property owners such that active resistance appears futile. And the goal of the state, then, and of every state employee who wants to contribute toward securing and improving his own position within the state, is and must be that of maximizing exploitatively acquired wealth and income by producing favorable public opinion and creating legitimacy.

>>50644987
Taxes are just renting a country. They provide you borders and military protection. You get X years as a child to understand the rental agreement, and decide if you want to enter that agreement with this landlord, before you have to actually pay into it. At the end if the day you’ll have to start your own country to escape the fact that there is this obligation beset upon you. Deal with it libertarinigger

>>50646881
...
>>50646946
This is an excerpt from Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Banking, Nation States, and International Politics: A Sociological Reconstruction of the Present Economic Order available to read here.

https://mises.org/library/banking-nation-states-and-international-politics-sociological-reconstruction-present