Smart people do not pay their taxes

According to Merriam Webster, to tax means to make onerous and rigorous demands on the job, to charge, accuse or censure or to levy a tax on. Now, the word levy itself makes us think to conscription, collection and definitely imposition.

Consequently to tax means to constrain. Yet, we willingly pay it. Now, there is a catch. The willing part.  How willing and free are we when the state (any state for that matter) makes us pay the taxes. We take pride in living in democratic and free countries, yet we cannot speak of freedom. Physical freedom does not exist as we are determined by biology. Have you tried to exercise free-will when you have a full bladder? Not much freedom to express, is there? Freedom to choose between evil and good, you say? Well, not exactly your choice, either. Empathy, and by extension morals, are determined by biology (think of the mirror neurons which play a key role in empathy and other conducts that we thought were exclusively moral). Moral reasoning is generated by emotion and not cognition and some studies have shown that the right temporo-parietal junction is the place of intentions, thoughts and beliefs. And that can be modified by applying a magnetic field to the scalp. Yes, there is a moral centre in the brain and we can fidget with it. Oh well, not very encouraging to know that we can send an innocent to jail or let a criminal walk free if we are under the influence (of a magnetic field, that is). But, let’s go back to taxation.

Let alone the lack of freedom at a physical level, we live in a society and that by itself implies a series of new restricted liberties: obey by the rules (social, political and so on) to be accepted. The key word here is obey. One cannot fully and justly claim that he is free when, at the end of each month, the state steps in and claims a part of his labor.
According to Nozick, when the state takes a dollar from Bill Gates (the example belongs to Michael Sandel from Harvard Uni), to give it to a poor one, it is as if the state forces Bill Gates to work for the poor person. I know, Bill Gates is rich and he can afford it. But we are not rich, and we are equally taxed. You too work for the poor and the unemployed. Is that fair, you might honestly ask? Not exactly, with all do respect for the poor and the unemployed. It is admirable indeed to freely give your money and your time to help the poor. But, what if you do not wish to give the money or the time?
We have to get used to the idea that some are more talented, others have more luck (meaning more chances and opportunities brought together at the right time), others work more or have a higher IQ. Why does the state oblige us to level these natural differences (let’s not kid ourselves, we are not equal) by setting up a false and badly understood equality? Communists tried to level people by force, based on the idea that we are all equal, so they graciously failed. Pretty much like all the communes based on Tommaso Campanella’s Civitas Solis, where goods, women and children were held in common. Communism did not fail because of the atrocities committed by its eventually corrupted rulers. It failed because it went against the very basic human law of property. Not everyone is willing to share and we tend to keep things for ourselves. Communism failed because it was too idealistic while humans are highly pragmatic.

The work imposed on another person without his consent is mere slavery and the taxation is theft. Continuing Sandel’s line of arguments let’s assume that Gates would have consented to voluntarily give away that dollar, and that would have been done based on his free will. I doubt anyone asks Bill Gates, Michael Jordan, Julia Roberts or us, as a matter of fact, if we are willing to donate that dollar to the state. Or maybe in your part of the work, there is a dedicated person that asks for your consent at the end of each month, when you get the pay check, if you freely want to contribute to the general welfare. But I doubt that again, so consequently, the state takes some 31% (in the USA), some 50% (in Sweden) and 16% (in my homeland).

Honestly, not speaking of Jon Haidt type of moral judgments here, if there were no laws to keep us within the legal frames, how many of us would be willing to pay their taxes? Moreover, why?
To be able to enjoy agorism, meaning a truly free market, based on the volunteer exchange among free citizens, we need an elevated degree of conscience. And we, as species, lack that. And if we can outwit someone, we will.

Nevertheless, the libertarians claim – and I fully agree- that the fundamental right of each individual is the right to freedom. Meaning, we are theoretically born free, and we are not at the disposal of the society or the state’s demands. In other words, we are free to live our lives as we please as long as we respect the other people’s rights. Now, here is the catch: my rights pretty much end where the nose of others begins, and my inner freedom so highly praised by optimists is just a chimera. Allow me to attempt an explanation: although I am not a smoker, I do believe that smokers should be free to smoke their brains off without additional taxes or penalties imposed by a state with paternalist ambitions.
Maybe the state should not compel us to pay taxes for a future retirement pension, as it is our free and aware choice to live right here and right now, in the present, spending our income as we wish. The state’s attitude to decide what is good and what is bad for me, by forcing me by law to pay a facultative pension is condescending and highly offensive, and it reduces me to the position of an ignorant child (not that children are ignorant we just treat them as if they were).

But if I am treated like an ignorant child, who has no clue what is good for him, and I am imposed firm limits by a fatherly like state, why am I then forced to work like an adult?
Why does the state think that it is smarter and knows better than me? Don’t I really know that seatbelts can save my life? Do I need to be reminded with a fine that I can die if I don’t buckle them? Question: how comes that most democratic and free countries are in fact paternalist type states, that are warmly appreciated by their citizens for their social support and laws, where I am obliged to wear a helmet when I ride the bike or the seatbelt when I drive? Where is my right to have an accident or end my own life? Where is my free-will and my freedom as tax paying citizen? That is right, pretty much to hell.

To redistribute my income towards unemployed and poor (meaning the unique taxation which I, a single working mother, equally pay along with some Nouveau riche politician) is unjust. As simple as that.

I am not absurd and I do understand and agree that a certain level of taxation is needed and greeted, to entertain services that we all equally benefit from, such as ambulance, police, fire squad, or road maintenance. But why should I pay from my income the plastic bags that the city hall buys for the dog owners to pick up their feces? I certainly want a clean city, but I should not be obliged to pay for other people’s pets maintenance, no?

Taxation literarily implies taking off my own income, meaning ripping off the fruit of my labor without my consent. Now, Nozick asks, if the state gets a portion of my work without my consent, isn’t taxation morally equivalent with forced labor? And what is forced labor if not slavery? So what is taxation if not slavery?

Consequently, to tax someone equals coercion and to use a person for the general welfare – so praised by utilitarianism- is morally wrong as it doubts the moral foundation of self-possession. How can I be my own master if I cannot decide upon my fundamental rights of disposing of my labor as I please, of my right to live or die (assisted suicide is another example of a paternalist state who claims to respect human rights), the right of conscience of raising and educating my child as I please, since the state insures religious education by law- as if was supposed to assure me of her future moral spine. How can I pursue happiness if I cannot pursue freedom?

Placenta with garlic, anyone?

His name is Armin. Not Armin Van Buuren, the Dutch DJ who sings In and Out of Love, but Armin Meiwes, a German citizen. In 2003, Armin, 42 and IT technician by trade, decided to post an Internet ad that read: "I am looking for a man, well done, about 20-30 years, to be killed and then consumed.” To his surprise, he received hundreds of responses, but only one appeared serious: that of Bernd Brandes. After a long correspondence, the two staged meeting that was to fulfill his dream. Below is an excerpt from the conversation that they had before committing the act (cator99 is the nickname of Bernd Brandes, and Armin Meiwes's antrophangus). Translated from German by Jina Moore.

CATOR99: Hallllooooo????
ANTROPHAGUS: Hi, Cator, what do you do professionally, that you are up so late at night?
CATOR99: I can’t sleep well anymore because of our meeting
ANTROPHAGUS: That’s a sensible reason. Yesterday I was incredibly tired, it was a stressful day
CATOR99: I’m in telecommunications
ANTROPHAGUS: Oh, that sounds interesting
CATOR99: I believe you
ANTROPHAGUS: I’m looking forward to our meeting; it will definitely be really cool
CATOR99: I want it to be! I hope it’ll be really cool. Are you setting an alarm clock?????
ANTROPHAGUS: It’s only a few days until March 9
CATOR99: Still, I would have rather met you yesterday and felt your teeth
ANTROPHAGUS: One can’t have everything. There’s still some time before you really feel my teeth
CATOR99: I hardly know what to expect. Have you slaughtered a man before?
ANTROPHAGUS: Unfortunately, only in my dreams, but in my thoughts I do it every night
CATOR99: So I’m the first? You have eaten human flesh before, or you haven’t?
ANTROPHAGUS: No, you don’t exactly find it in the supermarket, unfortunately
CATOR99: How do you know if it will taste good to you, or that the blood won’t make you sick?
ANTROPHAGUS: I’m readying myself with my dreams. Once I was so excited I grabbed a needle and drew my own blood so I could drink it
CATOR99: And your blood, it tasted good to you?
ANTROPHAGUS: It was quite tasty. Once I was drilling some holes and the drill slipped right into my hand, that was a real treat. Blood is the juice of life. It contains everything a person needs for nutrition
CATOR99: Then I hope you won’t wilt, that you can really see it through without a problem
ANTROPHAGUS: To bite into your penis will certainly not be easy—living flesh is somewhat more resistant than fried—but one thing is certain: our dream will be fulfilled
CATOR99: But there’s not so much in it as there is in muscle
ANTROPHAGUS: Yeah, but the penis is principally a spongy material filled with blood
CATOR99: For both our sakes, I hope that’s true. I hope you have also already thought about what’s to be done with the rest. Fulfilling the dream shouldn’t become a nightmare for you. No one will know where I’ve disappeared to
ANTROPHAGUS: After you’re dead, I’ll take you out and expertly carve you up. Except for a pair of knees and some fleshy trash (skin, cartilage, tendons), there won’t be much of you left
CATOR99: There will be a good bit, like the knees, I hope you have a good hiding place for them
ANTROPHAGUS: I’ll dry out the knees and grind them up soon after
CATOR99: Okay, they’re good as fertilizer, I heard that once. I see you’ve thought about it. Good! Sounds like I’m the first
ANTROPHAGUS: And you won’t be the last, hopefully. I’ve already considered catching a young person from the street, but I would rather kill only those who want to be killed
CATOR99: That also doesn’t sound bad. But yeah, seeing as it’s not so totally legal, this is in my eyes better than yanking somebody directly off the street
ANTROPHAGUS: Exactly, I’d do it, if it were legal.

To shorten the story, based on which it was written at least a book and made a movie (Grimm Love), the two eventually met. Those who victimize Bernd, branding Armin, I would like to ask them to wait a little while with theirs predictions of moral judgments based on emotion, so they can pass one based on cognition. Therefore, I promise to increase the pace of action and present the story as accurate as possible.

Bernd was only one in a long line of people who wished to be killed and eaten. Before him were the 32-year-old Borg Jose, Matteo, Andreas (who had a fantasy of being picked up in a cattle truck, with Meiwes wearing rubber boots and then slaughtering him like a pig), Alex (who wanted to be beheaded and which Meiwes refused on the grounds that he would be ‘too fatty for consumption’).

The sixth man, Stefan got to the stage of being hung from a meat-hook inside Meiwes’ slaughter room. He would have killed him, however it Stefan got cold feet and was set free. The seventh potential victim was 27-year-old Dirk Moller. Meiwes was able to get as far as chaining the man to his bed and marking him out to be chopped up, but like Jose, Moller got cold feet and was set free.

The final man to reply to the message, was none other than Bernd-Juergen Brandes, who answered the ad: "I am a man who loves the thought of dinner. My flesh is real and is yours. Fry me, boil me, take me to a barbecue, I do not care as long as you enjoy your meal. I want to be your meal, it is my call and I am ready .- Usenet: March 31, 2002, 7:09 pm

After they met, the two stood chatting for a while, and then Brandes took a handful of tranquilizers and a bottle of Schweppes to put off his anxiety. Together, they have severed Brandes' penis, which they cut into pieces and cooked with olive oil with garlic. They tried to eat it, but it seemed too chewy, so they dropped the erogenous appetizer. Thereafter, Brandes went to take a bath, where due of alcohol, bleeding and vasodilatation has lost consciousness.
In the bathroom, Armin has slit his neck with a single strike, then sliced him and the next months, he consumed about 20 pounds of Brandes' flesh, washing it down with a fine wine from South Africa.

After a relatively short while, police caught him and Armin was eventually sentenced to eight years in prison. Perhaps you're wondering (I did) why such a light sentence? This man was, after all, a cold blooded killer and a danger to society. The answer is quite simple: as Germany, like most civilized states, has no explicit law prohibiting cannibalism. Cannibalism, pretty much like incest, is beyond any written law (and Paul Bloom, a charismatic Yale professor, wonderfully speaks of it in How Pleasure Works). They both are a taboo.

Consequently, the German state could only prosecute Meiwes for homicide, not 1st degree murder. He was eventually found guilty of premeditated murder and now serves a life prison sentence.

Probably after the first lines you already got desensitized (due to prolonged exposure) and now we can speak less emotionally about cannibalism. Was Armin guilty of murder if the victim consented and wanted to be killed? If yes, what is the difference between Jack Kevorkian's mercy killings and Armin's consensual eating of Brandes, if both fulfilled the desires of those who wanted to die? Sure, Dr. Kevorkian motivated his acts by saying that part of the medical profession is the physicians’ duty to relieve the suffering of the sick, not to extend it (any doctor in the house to respond to that one?). But the main question here, is not why Armin wanted to eat another man (that is rather obvious), but why did Brandes want to be killed and eaten by another man?

Cannibalism is not new and we, as humans, performed and still do various forms of cannibalistic acts. Some anthropologists argue that no human society was exclusively cannibalistic and if it were, it did so to be able to defend or feed in extreme cases. Most ate their enemies, and this process almost always equated with eating / exterminating the threat. Sometimes, people have resorted to cannibalism out of desperation or hunger during the drought and hunger, or other extreme conditions (as were the four sailors from the yacht Mignonette, which ate Parker, 17, after drifting without food and water for several days at sea), or during the siege of the first Crusade, when the crusaders had eaten the bodies of the enemies at al-Numan Ma'arrat. Amin Maalouf, a Lebanese writer (who was awarded the Goncourt in 1993 for The Rock of Tanios) recounts incidents of cannibalism of Crusaders on their way to Jerusalem, actions who were to be buried by the Catholic Church. I will not even mention the invitation to cannibalism as addressed by Christ: "my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life." (But I did anyway).

Or there are societies engaged in consumption of the dead, such as Fore tribe of Papua New Guinea who enjoys eating the brains of the dead. This is called endocannibalism (Paul Bloom explains in How Pleasure Works) and usually the cannibals wait up until people die of natural causes, and then eat them. Unlike exocannibalism which involves a degree of cruelty, because it implies searching for young and healthy people, killing them then eating them. Between the two types of cannibalism, it clearly seems that exocannibalism is more severe because it involves murder.

Cannibalism, explains Bloom, is not only consumption of human protein; but it involves the consumption of an individual’s core essence. It is more than consumption of protein. Rolling Stones guitarist, Keith Richards, says that among the most bizarre things he sniffed it was his father's ashes. Sure, it is possible that Richards was dead drunk or high as a kite, but perhaps beyond the idea based on the histrionic desire of an infantile rock star, was the desire to assimilate the essence of a loved one. Jeffrey Dahmer claimed that he ate all his lovers because he did not want them to leave him. In fact, what is oral sex if not an act which symbolizes the cannibalistic desire to devour and preserve the essence of the loved one?

Cannibalism is an expression which, besides the metaphysical explanation of the desire to assimilate the essence of the person, it shows some transient or permanent mental disorders upon which I will not insist: trichophagia (hair eating), onychophagia (nail biting), dermatillomania (skin picking), dermatophagia (obsessive-compulsive disorder of biting their own skin), cheek or lip biting, nasal mucus eating, self vampirism or as Brandes did, eating one's own organs.

There are cases of forced or imposed self-cannibalism, which are considered crimes, unlike the others, like the case of the Hungarian Erzsebet Bathory who forced her servants to eat their meat; the Spanish colonists who forced natives to eat their own testicles; or those in Haiti during the 1991 coup, or 1990 in Sudan, where some people were forced to eat their own ears.

Another form of self-cannibalism, which is not only acceptable but sometimes recommended in certain social circles (see Tom Cruise's enthusiasm when his wife was pregnant), is placentophagia. In some cultures there is a placenta lady who comes over and helps you cook it. While eating the placenta is a regularly met habit in the animal regnum, in the human world, this is not necessary, as mothers are well nourished, therefore eating the placenta, as an immediate source of protein, is pretty much useless. It is striking, however, that many midwives recommend the use of placenta food (or pills) as a palliative for post-partum depression, although no scientific study supports this argument. But humans are highly irrational and logic is not what defines us. In addition to nutritional intake, today's placentophagia has no other benefit.

But for fine gourmet taste, I recommend the recipe that I came across the other day: finely chopped placenta, garlic, salt to taste, all stir-fried in olive oil. For a satisfying taste, season with coriander and freshly ground pepper. You can serve with a glass of white wine. Bon appétit.