Oh dear. Tony Adragna frets about tax havens:
. . . not all activity in tax havens is questionable, but when the activity has as its primary purpose the avoidance of taxation, then we run afoul of the letter and spirit of the tax code.
I wonder how Adragna feels about emigration, which so often is nothing more than avoidance of the laws at home.
Oh come on. The only places where there are no laws are uninhabited islands, and if you want to live on one, at least you’re being consistent. If you want to have the advantages of living in a civilized place while skipping out on paying for the services that produce that stable environment, you’re wanting to get something for free, and let someone else pay for it.
The state is miserable at providing a “stable environment”; it seems to feel it’s not doing its job unless it frequently changes the rules. But who said anything about no laws?
Is it your contention that everything any government does is necessary to all civilization anywhere? That there’s no such thing as an excessive or unfair tax? That the coerced consent of the governed is morally irrevocable?
If I move my assets to some less spendy state, I relieve the previous state of the burden of defending those assets; why, then, should it continue to tax them?
If I move my body to a more lenient state, my wicked activities, whatever they may be, cease to be a problem for the people of the previous state; what legitimate interest, then, has the previous state in enforcing its laws on me?
Most anarchists, by the way, favor (common) law, merely opposing coercive monopolies of jurisdiction and enforcement. The ethics and practicality of anarchy are discussed elsewhere, e.g.: Bryan Caplan’s faq; David Friedman’s chapter on competing jurisdictions.
Hm, I’m not so sure about “most anarchists”.