From: jdd@aiki.demon.co.uk (Jim Dixon)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 11:42:29 PDT
To: tcmay@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Voluntary Governments?
Message-ID: <7310@aiki.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In message <199408230610.XAA15960@netcom3.netcom.com> "Timothy C. May" writes:
> Jason Solinsky wrote:

> > Easily. They could deny you access to services of greater value than the
> > tax being imposed. MIT weilds this power quite successfully. This thread
> 
> Jason is confusing markets and governments.
> 
> A movie theater that sells tickets is not "taxing" its patrons--it is
> selling access. A university that charges tuition is not "taxing" its
> customers.
>
> [ complications deleted]
>
> To call all negotiated prices "taxes" is, bluntly,
> absurd. It also cheapens the language by throwing away the essential
> distinction between market prices and taxes.

Jason's use of the term 'tax' in a special sense is no more an abuse
of the language than the attempt to change the conventional meaning
of the word 'government'.  He says that institutions like MIT govern
the behavior of their special populations, that they can impose levies
on their users, and that they can enforce rules against their users
without the use of physical force.

> In any case, something is a "market price" if one can walk away from
> the transaction. I know of almost nothing the U.S. government calls a
> "tax" that taxpayers are free to walk away from, to not pay (and thus
> not receive the service).

You can walk away from almost all US taxes by walking away from the
USA.  I have.

What about luxury taxes, fishing licenses, flying licenses, and so
forth?	If you insist on calling these 'market prices', you begin to
really rip the fabric of the language.
--
Jim Dixon