Pol. Ideology 33: Anarchy or Minarchy

From wiki, anarchy means "'absence of a leader', "without rulers"), has more than one definition. In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is used to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority.... Proponents of anarchism (known as "anarchists") advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations."

"Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud... Minarchists argue that the state has no authority to use its monopoly on force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected, through a system of law courts and enforcement. Minarchists generally believe a laissez faire approach to the economy is most likely to lead to economic prosperity."

Last July 09, 2012, I posted this photo in my facebook wall with a brief note, "Funny but true, or scary and true." Then a friend based in Tokyo, Marc Abela, made a comment, then we had the following exchanges below, from July 09 to 11 this week. Posting the exchanges with his permission.
-----------

Marc Abela ‎"Metaphorically a "Trojan Horse" has come to mean any trick or stratagem that causes a target to invite a foe into a securely protected bastion or space. It is also associated with "malware" computer programs presented as useful or harmless to induce the user to install and run them."
-Wikipedia  :)

Nonoy Oplas Thanks Marc. I think the Obamacare can be considered as a Trojan horse in the definition you gave. People will reject if they will see an explicit tax law, but they will open up if it's a health insurance law, not fully realizing the various new taxes or raising of existing tax rates, introduced by the Obamacare.

Marc Abela In all fairness, one could probably push your great comment and extend it to the effect that all (all) taxes (in history?) have all been presented with exactly the same angle, i.e. as a Trojan horse... Most politicians aren't really that smart, but all of them are smart enough to know not to tell their people "I will tax you more - simply because I hope to get more money for myself"... :)
Ultimately, I guess the Greek have really invented it all, then haven't they, from Democracy to the Odyssey, they've obviously pretty much prepared everything... :)

Nonoy Oplas But taxes as mandatory contribution to the govt are also done similarly even in voluntary organizations. You join a rotary club or golf or tennis or running club, you also pay the mandatory dues, there are also elected officials there, have by-laws . So taxes or mandatory payment are trade off of belonging to an organization, voluntary or government. A few and small taxes are seen by many people as plain taxes, not the typical Trojan horse.

Marc Abela Well... I tend to disagree (if I may) a little bit there.
For in fact, if a tax is (in any amount) voluntary, then it is not a tax... A tax is and has got to be 100% "you pay us whether you like the service or not - or we throw you in a cage, and if you refuse the cage, we kill you". Sorry for being a bit blunt - keeping things vague never really helps... :)

So yeah, everything else, joining organizations, fees @ tennis clubs, etc - if nobody throws you in a box if you refuse to join the activity and open your wallet, then it all fits (entirely) OUTSIDE the scope of taxes. Mixing both "taxes" and "voluntary organization imposed fees" would be like mixing say a straight clear "rape" with saying "I was raped - but I got to freely select the person who raped me, I got to decide how much they raped me, and I said stop when I had enough". One can't have it both ways, if we're the one deciding how things move, then it's not a rape (/tax). If a king or a government bills you money in exchanges for services yet to be determined in some remote future or for goods very vaguely defined or clearly absent (and if you don't surrender your money - you end up in a box) then it's a tax. If not - then everything else is pure normal/private business with all the coercion that comes with it, you want to eat in my restaurant you have to pay up front for reservation, you want to buy an iPod you have to pay a deposit, you want to watch my movie you pay cash before the thing starts, you want to join my club it's X dollars a month, you want to live the building I just built it will cost you Y per month just for condo fees, etc etc...
(let me know if you disagree...)

Nonoy Oplas Yes, sort of disagreement. If we agree with the definition that something that is "mandatory payment", "obligatory contribution" otherwise there are penalties, say throwing you out of an organization or putting you in a box, then there is similarity with govt tax coercion and voluntary orgs' contribution coercion. The difference of course is that one may not belong to any voluntary organization while one has to pay a tax to the govt, but the above works on the premise that people opt to belong to one organization in one way or another.

Marc Abela Interesting... See, I personally always make a very clear (100% thick) line between:
1. Bills which I am forced to pay for clear "goods & services" that I "need/want/hope/have" to use
2. Bills which I am forced to pay, just because, well... "because" :)
I've noticed that when people start using dotted-lined definitions, discussions tend to move sideways more than they should...

Migration and Freedom 17: US Taxing Nationals Abroad

Migration allows people to move to other places or countries that give them some optimal utility and satisfaction. No place can be perfect of course, but depending on one's priorities in life, say a good paying job, children's education, pursuit of arts and leisure, marrying someone, other reasons, people settle on a place, even temporarily, that give them that optimal degree of satisfaction or fulfillment.

Many foreigners go to the US to work, study, or stay temporarily. Many US citizens also go abroad to work, study, or stay temporarily. Fine, it gives people freedom to pursue their goals and priorities in life.

But a problem will arise if the US government will impose tax obligations to their citizens who have lived and migrated abroad. Or even people who happened to be born in the US and hence, have US nationality, single or dual citizenship, but have moved and grew up abroad. This situation is considered by some people as "tax imperialism" by the US government to their citizens abroad.

Below are three news reports of some Americans moving out and renouncing their US citizenship, or children of migrants born in the US and going back to their parents' home countries.

The first is a rather perplexing story. With the new tax regulations by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), these Americans have two choices: pay up those tax obligations in the US to avoid further fines and penalties, or renounce their US citizenship and cut clean from such tax obligations as they already pay taxes to their home or host countries where they are staying and working now.

Here are the news reports:'s an interesting news report from the NYT yesterday.
--------

(1) Many Americans Abroad Surprised by Tax Code's Nasty Bite

By BRIAN KNOWLTON

Published: May 10, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/us/11iht-expats11.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=global-home

WASHINGTON — As Americans abroad chafe under sharply increased U.S. pressure to declare foreign holdings and catch up on back tax filings, one group with tenuous ties to America and the benefits of citizenship is feeling particular pain and unease.

They might be called “accidental” Americans, born during their foreign parents’ brief stay on U.S. soil, or born abroad to American parents who long ago settled elsewhere.

After lifetimes abroad, many in this group, whose total size is impossible to estimate, had believed that because exemptions left them owing no U.S. income tax they had no obligation to file returns; many have been tripped up by a requirement that they still declare their foreign bank and financial accounts.

In interviews, several people declined to allow their full names to be used for fear of complicating already complex tax situations. “Some people have never even lived in the U.S.” and learned belatedly of American tax responsibilities, said Sonia Stewart, a tax accountant in Grayson, Georgia, who works exclusively with overseas filers. “People are panicking.”

Some typical laments include:

•Roy, 37, a lifelong Canadian resident and citizen whose dual-national mother fears the U.S. tax authorities will target the modest savings account the Canadian government provides him as a developmentally disabled adult;

•Jonathan, 34, a teacher whose American parents migrated to Canada 39 years ago. He considers himself 100 percent Canadian — a maple leaf is tattooed on his back — and believed until last year that he did not need to file a U.S. return. Tax advisers now tell him he must file eight years’ returns, at a cost in fees and fines in the thousands, lest an eventual U.S. inheritance be jeopardized;

•The teenage children of Peter Hallworth, a Briton married to a Swede living in Malmo, Sweden; the children were born in the United States but lived there only as infants. Mr. Hallworth, having heard horror stories, now expects to urge his children, when they reach adulthood, to renounce the U.S. citizenship that up to now he had treasured.