Interesting analysis. Makes no sense, but interesting. Sounds like something Al Gore or Chicken Little ("The sky is falling; the sky is falling!) dreamed up.
Mike, I don't think any individual can have the "right" to rule another by force. Thus, there rightfully ought be no such thing as a government. Who needs a country?
Too bad the Scots didn't vote to govern themselves--individually, that is.
Taxation is indistinguishable from the crime of extortion, except it isn't a crime because the state needs your money and taxes are the easiest, safest way for the state to take it from you. The rulers get to say what are crimes and what are not. Tax collectors are immunized by the state, or they would all be in prison for extortion and/or aggravated menacing. The state does not like others extorting.
Taxes are enFORCED. They depend on violence or the threat thereof. And violence only and inevitably begets more violence. As a society that relies on force and violence (viz., taxes) for so many things, including for many even their daily bread, we can neither hope nor expect to be free from violence in other aspects of our lives. The slaughter of innocent children in Sandy Hook Elementary and Columbine High may be traceable to our reliance on taxes. Violence begets violence.
A tax revolt at a lot lower number than 70 percent is possible when enough people realize taxation is extortion at any level, and simply refuse to pay.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God," means exactly what it says. Since none of those present when Jesus uttered that brilliant response to the question, "Should we pay Caesar's tax," his response was a resounding rebuff to tax collectors then and now. Give them nothing. As Psalm 24 verse 1 puts it, "The earth is the Lord's and all that is in it," which leaves nothing for that plundering, enslaving pedophile, Caesar.
The first libertarian anarchist was none other than Jesus of Nazareth, and it is from him--not any socialist--that both are concepts derived. "“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12)
By this measure, all are equal, no one can rule or tax others, at least not without the other's explicit consent. What could be more libertarian or anarchic?
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and the most important commandment. The second most important commandment is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ The whole Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets depend on these two commandments.”
No one can love their neighbor and rule over them or tax them.
Jesus was the first Voluntaryist (viz., nonviolent libertarian anarchist)
Close, but no cigar. I'm a Fruedster. And analyzing your comments here (except for you, I'm likely the only one with sufficient time to waste reading them), I've determined with apodictic certainty that you are suffering from an arrogance or superiority complex, which you adopt to hide a innate sense of inferiority. I'm sure your problem and attendant troubles are the result of a traumatic childhood experience, which you have repressed beyond your capacity to recognize the cause or its deleterious effect. Trapped as you are between superior and inferior complexes, you are caught in a squirrel-cage existence, chasing your tail from one Austrian Economic site to another trying your best to refute logic with logic and accomplishing nothing more than making a scorning fool of yourself. But do not despair, you can be cured if you seek psychiatric help..
IMHO, "productive" work is not something someone working for government can do. When the government sends a man out to build a road he will be paid with tax revenues or borrowed money to be repaid with tax revenues. The tax revenues will be acquired by taxing the private sector, reducing the funds available to hire someone to do productive work, like build a road. So it would seem to be a Mexican stand off with the productive work of the government employee being offset by the loss of productive work by the private employee--except a much greater amount is required to fund the labor of the government employee because he will be a brother-in-law of the government administrator, who hired him and who himself needs to be paid munificently, and the government employee will be working at half the output of a private sector worker because he only got the job because his brother-in-law felt sorry for him 'cause he'd couldn't hold a job for being lazy. And then there is the tax collector and tax administrator, and Inspector General to be paid before the gubbermint employee, and....well, you know the rest probably better than I do or you wouldn't be calling yourself tp.
I took more courses in Econ and Finance than in my English major because I got my few good grades in them. Although I couldn't recognize it at the time, the Econ department at Miami U. in Oxford, OH was thoroughly Keynesian back then. Went to my 50th reunion in 2010 and sat through the "featured" Econ class for the attending alumni taught by one of the leading lights of the department, and guess what? King Keynes still reigns! Did not make a contribution to the alumni campaign. Btw, two of my personal "heroes" (heroes is an exaggeration) in the arena of Finance both have engineering degrees (Mech and Chem) from Case Institute in Cleveland, OH. Keep the faith, my friend and thanks for your comments.
Ditchdigging is not an economic stimulus if government is paying the digger with dollars taken from the wood choppers--or anyone else in the private sector. Individuals produce wealth, governments confiscate wealth and spend it foolishly.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Ned Netterville 
Experiment