He has always been my favorite Economist.  Ever since he wiped the floor with the Liberal AFL-CIO economist back when I was in college. 

I would really like to see any liberal discuss his points and defend them.  I suspect that they will try to change the subject, but not actually debate them.

Okay, was gonna stay away from this one but couldn't help myself-

Going by the logic presented in this article (and the OP does make a good point) any and all forms of taxation are socialism and therefore evil, correct?

Hence, why the government forcing you to give up your money so the old lady across the street can have her lawn mowed, etc.

So if socialism is a fundamentally evil concept, and therefore taxes are a fundamentally evil concept, what should we replace it with?

If we abolish taxes entirely society would virtually collapse, as there would be-

-no roads- roads fall apart VERY quickly, so within a year or two travel between major cities would be almost impossible

-no potable water- the water treatment system is payed for with tax dollars, and expensive repairs and parts replacement would mean eventual breakdown

-no fire department- your home on fire? Sucks to be you pal, hope you got lots of friends who'll help out!

-no postal system-

-no police- this means that anyone who wasn't happy with the anarchy could sling on some football pads with spikes (ala Mad Max) and become a bandit on the highway

And hinging off the fact that there would be no police you would have multiple forms of

-anarchy- people creating their own vigilante squads, going after anyone they thought was a 'bad guy' without impartial investigation, all kinds of nastyness would ensue

-no army-

meaning while everyone would be running around doing their own thing another nation living in the "evil" of socialism could come in and take over.

Now this anarchy wouldn't last forever... very quickly we'd return to a feudal system in which people would band together in little fiefs, ruled by a lord (or whatever modern term you want to call it... a rose by any other name) and these small groups would probably end up fighting or making alliances with other small groups ruled by their respective lords.....

oh, hold on one second......

That's exactly what we've been doing as a species for thousands of years!!!!

So it's safe to say that if you want to live in any kind of decent society (in which more than 1 % of the populace has any kind of quality of life) you NEED to have taxation and socialism present in some form.

If you don't, you go to a feudal, or even worse tribal system with which our species has ample experience and the track record for that aint too good!

Also, with no taxation democracy dies. Because you have a small number of very wealthy people holding all the power, the purse strings, who dole out the largesse of their wealth in scraps to the unwashed masses (once in the odd while the unwashed masses DO realize that they have the numbers advantage and then you get a situation involving torches, pitch forks and guillotines, but historically this is minimized if you can keep your poor people down by making them fight the poor people from the next fief over)

So, if socialism is truly "evil", then it is safe to say it is a necessary evil.

The question then becomes in what forms should taxation be used?

The argument from the right is that since it is fundamentally evil, taxes should only go to things that people can't accomplish individually. In nations where this argument has come to fruition, through the demands of entities like the IMF, World Bank and Chicago School of Economics, how has it played out? Look at South America, which has been a laboratory for testing ideological economic theories.

Taxes are cut to the bone, since they're evil and hindering rich people from creating more wealth.

Since taxes get cut, the government does 2 things-

1) Cut just about all infrastructure spending to the bare minimum required levels. This means that things like water treatment, road repair and the like still exist but they're so incredibly shoddy that they're largely unreliable, so the well-off build their own internal systems, hence small islands of gated communities with their own water wells/aquifers, private police and maintenance contractors that are surrounded by miles and miles of delapitating barrios in between.

While the bare minimum infrastructure for life still exists in reduced form, "luxuries" like healthcare, welfare and public education are the first to get the axe.

Then any form of price controls get axed, and legislation requiring companies to keep their money in-country go too. When price controls go, average folks often have the price of basic staples like bread and cooking oil take up half or more of their monthly income, therefore meaning they have no ability to pay for a luxury like medical care or education. With legislation requiring what companies must do with profits generated in country gone, corporations move most of their money out of country instead of circulating it in the local economy. This is a fancy lie as all of this money counts as GDP growth on the nations' books although very little if any is actually staying in country.

2) INCREASE spending on police and military. Since the infrastructure and fabric of society has been largely downgraded due to decreased government revenue, there are lots of unhappy, unemployed, miserable people who are against the government. Many countries in S. America have played this out time and again. In order to push through wildly unpopular measures like tax breaks for big business while at the same time eliminating public healthcare and price controls, the only way to do it is for the police and military to keep their boots on the necks of the people.

Often these increased expenditures on the military are justified as

a) Fighting terrorism

War on drugs

Interestingly enough, many of the targets of the beefed up military forces end up being labor leaders and non-violent grassroots political organizers.... aint that interesting!

Public services are not the same as entitlements to particular people or groups. Infrastructure, security, defense, etc., are available to all and benefit everyone equally. Handouts do not, and thus have no place as a tax-funded government function.

It's obvious most people won't see that way for giving a few bucks to pay someone else to do the work is not the same as doing the work yourself to them even though the punishment for both could be the same.

Especially when the ones agreeing are most likely "the old lady".

It's rather amusing how Artyism did exactly what Doc Guy said some liberal would do.  Artyism the question wasn't about taxation, I think everyone can agree that some level of taxation is necessary for society to function.  The question was whether an "extra" tax should be levied on one person, or a small group of people to benefit one other person or small group of people.  In the example should a neighbor be forced to pay to have his neighbors lawn mowed because that "old lady" can't physically or financially do it?  The answer is no, the neighbor shouldn't be forced to do it but the hope would be that a few fellow neighbors in the neighborhood might actually pitch in to help the old lady out out of the goodness of their hearts.

Socialism is when the government gives to specific people, instead of the people as a whole, or takes from some people more than others.

No.  Just transfer payments.  He does not argue against the original purpose - to provide for government services that are necessary to live in a civlized society.  So the rest of your response is really not germaine.

I love it when a plan comes together.

That's not logic, it's more of a wild-assed leap into hyperbole.

However to address the issue ... taxation can and should be equated to dues paid to a property owners association in the OP example.

Everyone in the neighborhood pays their dues which go towards the upkeep of the neighborhood ( common areas, mutual fees and costs associated with the POA, and road maintenance; if private, etc) benefiting all residents.

As an aside, the elderly lady gets her yard mowed voluntarily by her neighbors; not because they are forced, but because they care about their neighbors.

A nod to EL-DUDERINO

Based on the replies to the following quote:

It's best you listen to that little voice in your head next time.

im wondering something.....ive heard that redistrubution of wealth is socialist. if thats true, then how exactly does one go about doing that without taxes? many of the responses have been quick to say that taxes have little to do with socialism, why? arent taxes a legal way of taking property from a citizen by the government so it can be used for a purpose that said citizen has little to no say in(depending on the gov.)? that sounds pretty socialist to me. as far as being "evil", well that a matter of perspective. if i could assemble a government in anyway i could think of, i would probably have a communist gov, with a constitution & free elections. i dont see any reason why a government cant be created like that, it just hasnt been done(to my knowledge anyway).

Mr Williams' example is ludicrous, and as such it's impossible to effectively argue for or against it. No one is (or at least should be!) arguing that socialism will ever result in a grass-maintenance system for private citizens.

When you can find me someone who believes that anyone should be forced to pay for someone else's lawn to be mowed, then I will consider Mr Williams' argument to be of any interest whatsoever.

Ridiculous examples are never persuasive and only interesting insofar as they are funny. This one isn't funny, so it has no value.

Well since it's a lawn, most people would agree it shouldn't be done.

What if instead it was food? That this poor old lady couldn't work enough to obtain food, and no longer had sufficient finances to obtain food - are you saying it would be evil for the local community to all come together and decide that everyone would donate a tin of food to the lady each week to allow her to survive, and similarly to impose punishments on people who refused and either wanted her to starve or instead wanted to 'free ride'? Are you also saying it would be good (/not evil) for her neighbours to just watch as she slowly starved to death, knowing they could easily help her?

But everyone benefits from a scheme that supports the elderly if they are incapable of working+have insufficient finances to survive (I'm assuming we're not talking solely about needing to mow the lawn anymore!), because they have the security (effectively a form of insurance) that if they end up in such a situation, they will too benefit. Hence the entire population benefits from insurance, of which a group of that population are direct recipients (i.e. they are claiming on the insurance that is provided). Hence you have a scheme taking money from everyone according to their ability to pay, to provide everyone with a benefit. Is that slavery?

I think you might misunderstand the purpose of Federal taxes. They were intended to be taken for the benefit of ALL citizens equally(IE.national defense, FDA, etc.), not to redistribute from one group to another or benefit some. Entitlement through taxation started in the 1960's and it is socialist in nature, hence LBJ's Great Society plan. Like herpes, seems you can't get rid of it once you have it

Other taxes are just the opposite, like taxes on alcohol or cigarettes. Would you like to pay taxes on these if you didn't smoke or drink? Of course not, that would be socialism.

Some of Artysim's comments on taxes are misleading as well (at least as they are in the US). Gasoline is taxed (and sometimes tolled) for road maintenance/creation. The US Postal Service has been in the Black for 30+ years (IE. self-sufficient) since being allowed to change postal rates on their own. In many places Fire/police/schools taxes are paid via local property taxes. If you don't own, you don't pay or pay indirectly to your landlord through rent payment (This is why many illegals often have two or more families in one apartment) Of course I don't expect him to know this as it might be different in Canada, but one shouldn't assume.

Did you listen to what you wrote? Because it's two different arguments. It would not be evil for the local community to come together to support this woman, that's called charity. It would be evil for the government to force you alone, not your neighbor, or your neighbor' neighbor to support this woman. You are singled out and I think that is the point of the article.