469
IRS braces for $500bn drop in revenue as taxpayers skip filings in wake of DOGE cuts
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2025
469 points (98.6% liked)
Economics
673 readers
280 users here now
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That doesn't explain how they are "criminal". that was the word you used.
Many things are either subject to penalties or legitimacy based on context. If you cut someone open and take out their kidney, that's probably a crime! Unless you're a doctor doing a surgery in a hospital. Context matters.
When you were born, were you given the option to sign a contract agreeing to the taxation policy? If not, were you given the choice and free will to leave with the full understanding that you would try to find an area that better suited you? If the answer to these questions are no, which I'm going to assume they are, then you did not agree to the taxation policy and were not given the option. Therefore, it is a criminal act. If a doctor cuts out your kidney, it's because you gave consent for that to occur.
That's not what criminal act means. Criminal means it's a violation of a law.
Tax policy comes from the laws that are made (typically) by elected representatives. That's the government we live under, which is allegedly maintained by the consent of the people. If you knock that pillar out and just say "Government only applies to people who explicitly consent" then you're going to get some hellish mix of sovereign citizens and the purge.
Like, if you're not consenting to the laws of the US, can I just shoot you dead? Why not? Are you cherry-picking which laws you want to apply?
You can't really seriously be making the "I didn't ask to be born and thus I'm not subject to the rules of the land" argument, can you? I feel like every teenager comes up with that point, and then takes like a history class or philosophy class.
Well, to be fair, the teenager has a point and then they go and take a history class or a philosophy class which indoctrinates them to the government's worldview. School is to teach kids the "approved" narrative.
That's a pretty big claim that like all of philosophy is the "approved" narrative. I don't have a degree in history or philosophy, but maybe read up on like Hobbes and Kant?
You didn't respond to my part in the middle asking if you're just cherry-picking laws.
(Also I have to go get dinner and such, so I'm going to stop responding in a bit. This has been interesting.)
I unfortunately can't find the damn thing right now, but there's a YouTube video that talks about rules without rulers and discusses a world in which laws are made and enforced by market participants. So you would have security company A, and somebody else would have security company B. And if there was a dispute between the two individuals, the companies would mediate on their behalf. If Alice steals a television from Bob, then bob's security company will ask Alice's security company to allow them to seek monetary compensation from Alice or the return of the television. If Alice says that she did not steal Bob's television and Alice's security company agrees with her, then the two security companies would take the case to a binding arbitrator and let them decide and respect their decision on the matter.
Edit: found it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ0Qkhnt6bQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Ibq-9wulQ
This sounds like it would devolve into monopolies or cartels, which are famously bad for end users.
Also what happens if someone doesn't have private security? Are they just unprotected?
You're kind of describing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism which isn't taken seriously by many people because it has a lot of big problems.
You might also enjoy "A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear", which you can read about https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling , or probably get a copy at your local library (if it hasn't been defunded and shut down)
I appreciate you taking the time to find the video you found compelling, but right this moment I can't watch a 23 minute video in entirety. I usually prefer transcripts, personally.
I actually have read a libertarian walks into a bear, which I did find to be a rather interesting book. As for the security, different companies would have to compete to offer their services at a rate that the market could handle. Most people don't need the police very often, so the service would have to be rather cheap and just split among a bunch of people. When I hear people talk about how expensive private security is, I'm assuming what they're imagining is people that are hired to follow you around 24-7 and guard your body where this would be more similar to what we currently have, where you call only when you need assistance. You would also get far less punishment for victimless crimes such as smoking joints, which prosecutors currently absolutely love. I've heard former police people who are now police reform advocates talk about their time working where they would convict people on marijuana cases and have so many of them that they did not have time to get around to rape and murder cases, etc.
Why would the different companies compete when they could form a Trust instead?
Do private companies have the right to use violence? If so, you've kind of invented Cyberpunk2077 / Shadowrun, which notably are dystopias
Are you certain they wouldn't try to profit from victimless crimes? What's going to stop them?
And what happens if someone just doesn't have security? Or it's like private health insurance in the US, where it's a huge mess and your claims get rejected?
Stuff like marijuana laws should definitely be changed. The war on drugs is racist nonsense.
I really don't think anarcho-capitalism is the way to go.
Admittedly, trusts are definitely not something I understand well. But it seems like the easier you make starting a competitor, the easier it would be to keep a trust from forming.
The oil trusts of the early 1900s seemed like they were difficult to break without governments because of the fact that oil is a difficult thing to get a hold of. It's not something you can just go out with a small water pump and pull out of the ground.
A security company wouldn't have such a moat around them to keep out competitors. At least that's what it would seem like anyway.
As to whether these security companies could use violence. I think that would have to be on a case-by-case basis where violence would not be used in most cases unless there is active aggression occurring or imminent upon somebody they are to protect. In which case the use of force would be retaliatory and not aggression.
If a security company thinks that another security company is using unjustifiable force, then it could always be taken to an arbitrator or outed in the media.
Once the trust gets big enough, they can run other competitors into the ground even without doing violence.
You kind of see this with food stores in the US. You have some small shops, and then a mega corp like Walmart or whatever moves into the neighborhood. They can undercut the small shops due to scale, or even by operating at a loss. They can operate at a loss longer than the smaller companies can stay solvent. When all the small shops close up (or get acquired), the big company can then raise prices.
Behavior like that is just emergent from "free markets".
That's not even touching on the idea that they could just do violence to secure their position. Like old union busting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States might be worth a read, even though it's not exactly on this topic.
Who decides on the case by case? If anyone can form their own private security company, and can unilaterally decide that lethal force is authorized, that's a recipe for disaster. Alex hates his neighbor Bob. Alex forms a security company of his own. Bob comes home and walks over the flowerbed again, so Alex confronts him. Bob raises his voice. Alex decides this is imminent aggression, and shoots him dead.
Who is the arbitrator? Why does anyone listen to them? What is their enforcement mechanism? Are you reinventing a court system?
You're kind of reinventing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism still, which has a lot of problems.
I will have to read about the union busting so will only respond to the second bit
Alex can indeed form his own one man security company and shoot bob dead if he wishes to die as well. Because when bob is killed bob's security service will go after alex and persue the death penalty against alex. Alex's newly formed security company (himself) won't have the resources to defend him. When bob security vs alex security gets heard in arbitration the arbitrator is going to rule in favor of bob security which will then carry out the death penalty against alex. If the arbitrator ruled in favor of alex even though he was clearly in the wrong that arbitrator would rapidly be discredited and their business would shrink as security companies use the arbitrators compeditors.
Its modern court but without government monopoly. The government is a "trust".
Why would Alex listen to the other arbiter? Why not shoot them, too? Why not get a bunch of your friends, and fight your enemies until you establish yourself as a local warlord? That's what these security companies would be positioned to do, and that's going to bring out the worst of humanity.
Meanwhile, what if Bob was behind on his payments? Is this going to be like The Purge, where you can just do crimes to anyone who can't afford private security? That's going to extra suck for groups that are historically economically disadvantaged (women, children, descendants of slaves, chronically ill, to name a few)
And again, there's not really a reason for these different entities to compete when they can instead form a cooperative trust. That's sort of the history of the gilded age in the US. it sucked for most people.
It sounds like it's going to devolve into the rule of might-makes-right, where whoever has the most guns and willing soldiers gets to say what's what. Real life has at least some thin wrappers around might-makes-right, with rights enumerated in the constitution