Calling the vast majority of people "statist" seems to imply a (false) equivalence between voluntary and compulsorary taxation as competing theories.

Voluntary taxation is a fringe theory with some fairly serious flaws... the primary one in my opinion being that it erodes democracy by pushing even more influence over government into the hands of people with deep enough pockets to pay more (but only when they're happy). The incentives in that kind of system would be all wrong.

By all means have a go at defending voluntary taxation, I'd be interested to hear your opinion.

This is, in my view, a pretty naive (maybe to be polite I should say highly optimistic) view of human nature. Even if a majority of people planned to pay it I suspect many would end up not paying it most months as other priorities intervened.

Even if, say, 60% of people did end up paying the voluntary "taxation", a large number would pay nothing. The total sum required would be the same and those willing to pay would have to pay significantly more or there would be a huge shortfall. This would be extremely unfair; freeloaders would get a huge effective pay rise and consequently more influence in society.

In practical terms it would be very difficult to pay for services if if it was not possible to predict how much tax was to be gathered from month to month. Government income would fluctuate wildly. Employment in the public sector would be very risky. The economy would be extremely volatile to say the least. Planning for the future would be next to impossible.

There are many more ethical and practical problems with this idea. I could go on.

Then you would agree that private property rights are immoral because they don't exist without the threat of force.

https://mises.org/blog/relation-between-non-aggression-princ...

Taxation is protected by the threat of force, and if violated actual force.

You're drawing a boundary around money and calling it yours because it happens to be in your pocket, and saying the government is threatening force to take it... but in the USA in 2017 all that money is not yours, it belongs to the nation in exchange for services, defence, etc. Witholding it is a form of theft; you would be the one violating the property of others and demanding the initiation of force.

To me this is the most interesting line in your reply. There's so much bundled up in here.

First of all; the amount people will pay (and its distribution if they're allowed to nominate policies or departments to fund) would depend entirely on the decision architecture in which their decisions were made.

i.e. Exactly what information is given to citizens and when? What's the nature of their decision? What are the rules and limits? How long is the budget cycle and at what point in the year/month are they making their decision? How are citizens communicated to in the rest of the cycle? What does the broader economy look like after a couple of years of likely-reduced spending? What are the incentives acting on the media and their owners and how does that push them to influence public opinion?

Any mistakes in the implementation of that and it'd be guaranteed to fail (assuming there's any chance of success to begin with).

Secondly, although I think the output of voluntary funding decisions would be mainly a function of decision architecture, that will likely be influenced by overall trends in society. If you read recent work by Robert Putnam you'll probably be aware that the societal indicators of connectedness and social cohesion that he's compiled (things like the % of bipartisan bills, membership of clubs and societies, etc.) have been decreasing from their peak (in around 1964) and are presently on their way down to 1900-era levels. While he doesn't know the cause of that phenomenon, it seems deeply speculative that voluntary tax is the solution.

It's more likely that your desire for voluntary tax is a symptom of your mistrust of others to manage funding decisions for you, i.e. a symptom of the effect he's attempting to understand.

Leaving the issue of evidence aside, I'd generalise from the countless vital goods and services that are produced and paid for by voluntary interaction. I'd reason that since those systems work pretty well, it's reasonable to assume that Government would as well.

Then I'd spend many years heavily involved in Libertarian politics, trying to convince others to abandon the use of force against each other, only to quit in disgust when I realised that it was a waste of my time and effort, and that Tiberius' criticism of his Senate ("men fit to be slaves") rings as true today.

Taxpayers recieve benefits from paying tax. Slaves (those that didn't die) did not.

Taxpayers are able to assemble to discuss the matter, lobby their representatives, campaign for change, vote for the change, campaign for office. Slaves were not.

Taxpayers are free to leave the country and go somewhere new. Slaves, suprise surprise, were not.

I don't see moral equivalence there.

If it's not compulsory it is charitable giving, not taxation.

But you wouldn't make that claim of any _other_ vital service, would you? Food, water, transport, medicine ... all these and more are provided by voluntary payment - or by charity for those who can't afford it.

What's special about Government that it requires compulsion to fund?

Perhaps you could explain why you believe the provision of Government services is an exception that requires compulsion?