Mehkael
Registered User

cheers for the rep :-)

No, because I would rather pay private businesses to provide the services otherwise provided by "state." Whether or not I appreciate or would use or fund for any other reason any of the services provided by the state doesn't mean I should or should want to pay the state, specifically, to provide them.

"If they were purely voluntary I may pay a little less, but I would still pay."

Voluntary Taxation is an oxymoron. They're no longer taxes once they become voluntary.

"I currently pay taxes on a voluntary basis."

I don't. I pay taxes because the alternative is going to jail or having more of my property taken.

"Much closer to the logistics of how does somebody that did not pay for the roads not get to use the roads. Logistically it is practically impossible. They will inherently gain the benefit with or without payment, regardless of if they like or dislike the project for whatever reason."

Incorrect. Police remove people who do not belong on the road (whether or not I agree with their reasoning) all the time. Why is it so hard to imagine the same in a society where state-sponsored police do not exist and roads are privately owned?

I disagree. Your objection only works if you think those people have a right to that service in the first place. If people can't pay for a service, there are options for charity, credit, insurance, and of course no fire and rescue. I don't view fire and rescue, municipal water, security services, public schools, or roads as things which people are entitled to merely because they exist. If they can't pay for them, they go without. And if there's not a monopoly on such things (like fire and rescue), the competition between FDs in your local area would drive the cost down. I fail to see how this is means that anyone must be "coerced," except when they've agreed to pay and have failed to.

There is no reason why anything which cannot sustain itself completely off of user fees should exist. If it cannot sustain itself from user fees, there is no justification to hold guns to the heads of others in order to subsidize them. Unless I've entered into a contract with them in which I have obligated myself, willingly and explicitly, to contribute to their income even in the event that I am not actively calling on their services, taking my money without my permission or threatening me with jail or theft in order to fund them is the wrong way (morally) to go about things.

In this way, taxation (which is coercive in nature) needn't exist at all.

Your "sub-development" is an interesting circumstance, and in a more free world, I don't think they would exist. What's happening in those situations is that owners of properties are essentially being forced to relinquish ownership of their property to an uninterested third party. I'm not sure I understand the process of becoming the member of a housing association, but as far as I'm concerned, there's very little incentive to do so if all they're going to do is bitch about the length of your grass, as opposed to help provide for common protection.

Did you sign a contract?

Second, user fees =/= taxation. Taxation is coerced. Otherwise we could suggest I am coerced to buy groceries, use telephones, or park in a parking garage. I choose to do those things, and for that choice, I pay. I choose not to do those things, I lose nothing. The nature of taxation is that I have no [uncoerced] choice to pay should I not receive the benefits for which my taxes are helping to fund. I don't pay, I go to jail, my property gets seized, etc. etc. etc.

What you're describing is simply not "taxation."

Several things... First, I don't subscribe to the free-rider problem as a "problem," generally, much less here. If what you does helps me by some off chance, unless I CONSENTED to help fund your endeavor, I am not liable for it. You use a water filter to clean the water on your property. By the forces of nature, that clean water is taken to other properties and used by others. Those others have benefited from your water filter. Should they contribute to it? No. You did what you did for your purposes. I neither consented nor participated. I am not liable, financially. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that I am somehow subject to the terms of contracts between others to which I have not explicitly consented (think "social contract").

The moral issue here arises when I'm not a member of the group, my property lies outside of your 10 city-block radius, and you decide that no one will enter my property after 9PM, then you send your security force to come kidnap anyone who does enter my property after 9PM and me for allowing it.