Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is taxation theft?

vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 3:03:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What is the justification for a government to take, by force, money from people over whom it rules?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 3:06:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The will of the people. It's no more theft than an individual declaring a plot of land as his property.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 3:39:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 3:06:29 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The will of the people. It's no more theft than an individual declaring a plot of land as his property.

In a democracy, the "will of the people", would mean the "will of the majority of people". So the question becomes: What is the justification for the majority in a society to take, by force, money from others with or without their consent.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 3:39:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 3:03:31 PM, vbaculum wrote:
What is the justification for a government to take, by force, money from people over whom it rules?

Just curious, are you a libertarian?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 3:52:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 3:03:31 PM, vbaculum wrote:
What is the justification for a government to take, by force, money from people over whom it rules?

1) Simple. "Justification" means whatever the gang called government says it means. That gang reasons that when they force themselves on you for your own good, "justice" requires that you pay them for their beneficence. If you don't agree, they don't care. They have more guns than you do, proving how just they are.

2) Simple. The People need their wealth to be spent by those who rule them because the People are stupid. How do we know they are stupid? Because they allow themselves to be ruled.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 3:57:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 3:39:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:06:29 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The will of the people. It's no more theft than an individual declaring a plot of land as his property.

In a democracy, the "will of the people", would mean the "will of the majority of people". So the question becomes: What is the justification for the majority in a society to take, by force, money from others with or without their consent.

That compassion is more likely to found in the larger group of people. It's either majority rule or minority rule. It's a dichotomy, with some amalgamation of the two.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 5:38:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 3:39:33 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:03:31 PM, vbaculum wrote:
What is the justification for a government to take, by force, money from people over whom it rules?

Just curious, are you a libertarian?

I've been working on my political beliefs for a while. I used to be a (small 'd') democrat, but I find propositions like "taxation is theft" inescapablly truthful. But I've never heard a statist provide a strong, non-evasive retort to this so I'm asking here to see if there is a compelling counterargument to be made.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 5:39:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 5:38:30 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:39:33 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:03:31 PM, vbaculum wrote:
What is the justification for a government to take, by force, money from people over whom it rules?

Just curious, are you a libertarian?

I've been working on my political beliefs for a while. I used to be a (small 'd') democrat, but I find propositions like "taxation is theft" inescapablly truthful. But I've never heard a statist provide a strong, non-evasive retort to this so I'm asking here to see if there is a compelling counterargument to be made.

I just made one.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 5:44:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 3:57:31 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:39:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:06:29 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The will of the people. It's no more theft than an individual declaring a plot of land as his property.

In a democracy, the "will of the people", would mean the "will of the majority of people". So the question becomes: What is the justification for the majority in a society to take, by force, money from others with or without their consent.

That compassion is more likely to found in the larger group of people. It's either majority rule or minority rule. It's a dichotomy, with some amalgamation of the two.

Or no rule.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 5:47:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 5:44:10 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:57:31 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:39:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:06:29 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The will of the people. It's no more theft than an individual declaring a plot of land as his property.

In a democracy, the "will of the people", would mean the "will of the majority of people". So the question becomes: What is the justification for the majority in a society to take, by force, money from others with or without their consent.

That compassion is more likely to found in the larger group of people. It's either majority rule or minority rule. It's a dichotomy, with some amalgamation of the two.

Or no rule.

No...that's individualism, every man for himself. It is obviously a dichotomy, there will always be rule by either one or many....there's no escaping that, it's simply a fact of existence. And then individualism is the mother of immorality. There's no war in togetherness.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 5:56:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 3:57:31 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:39:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:06:29 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The will of the people. It's no more theft than an individual declaring a plot of land as his property.

In a democracy, the "will of the people", would mean the "will of the majority of people". So the question becomes: What is the justification for the majority in a society to take, by force, money from others with or without their consent.

That compassion is more likely to found in the larger group of people.

Yes, compassion is more likely to be found in the majority, but only for itself. Consider that the majority doesn't use marijuana, so the minority of marijuana users are forced to abstain against their will. If they don't they are thrown in jail - their lives, and the lives of their families, are destroyed. There are many examples of this disparity in compassion in modern, "tolerant" democracies.

It's either majority rule or minority rule. It's a dichotomy, with some amalgamation of the two.

Why does anyone have to rule over another?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 5:59:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 5:56:44 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:57:31 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:39:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:06:29 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The will of the people. It's no more theft than an individual declaring a plot of land as his property.

In a democracy, the "will of the people", would mean the "will of the majority of people". So the question becomes: What is the justification for the majority in a society to take, by force, money from others with or without their consent.

That compassion is more likely to found in the larger group of people.

Yes, compassion is more likely to be found in the majority, but only for itself. Consider that the majority doesn't use marijuana, so the minority of marijuana users are forced to abstain against their will. If they don't they are thrown in jail - their lives, and the lives of their families, are destroyed. There are many examples of this disparity in compassion in modern, "tolerant" democracies.

Indeed, and this is a shame. But the majority growing together in morality is a much greater thing than an individual dictating morality for a given area. Imagine one person owned all the land in America (which is individualism and property rights blahh) and made it a rule, a house rule, that nobody was to smoke marijuana. This is the alternative.

It's either majority rule or minority rule. It's a dichotomy, with some amalgamation of the two.

Why does anyone have to rule over another?

Because it is a basic fact of life. We're living together in finite space and so we must clash.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:00:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 5:47:35 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:44:10 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:57:31 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:39:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:06:29 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The will of the people. It's no more theft than an individual declaring a plot of land as his property.

In a democracy, the "will of the people", would mean the "will of the majority of people". So the question becomes: What is the justification for the majority in a society to take, by force, money from others with or without their consent.

That compassion is more likely to found in the larger group of people. It's either majority rule or minority rule. It's a dichotomy, with some amalgamation of the two.

Or no rule.

No...that's individualism, every man for himself. It is obviously a dichotomy, there will always be rule by either one or many....there's no escaping that, it's simply a fact of existence. And then individualism is the mother of immorality.

Can you back any of that up?

There's no war in togetherness.
What about the war on drug users.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:04:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 6:00:58 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:47:35 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:44:10 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:57:31 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:39:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:06:29 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The will of the people. It's no more theft than an individual declaring a plot of land as his property.

In a democracy, the "will of the people", would mean the "will of the majority of people". So the question becomes: What is the justification for the majority in a society to take, by force, money from others with or without their consent.

That compassion is more likely to found in the larger group of people. It's either majority rule or minority rule. It's a dichotomy, with some amalgamation of the two.

Or no rule.

No...that's individualism, every man for himself. It is obviously a dichotomy, there will always be rule by either one or many....there's no escaping that, it's simply a fact of existence. And then individualism is the mother of immorality.

Can you back any of that up?

There's no war in togetherness.
What about the war on drug users.

This is an impingement of individualism over collectivism. It's the same as locking up a murderer - those who lock him up are pursuing their interests over his. Togetherness is no murder. Of course I do not agree that drug users should be viewed as criminal.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:06:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 5:59:23 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 11/22/2013 5:56:44 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:57:31 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:39:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:06:29 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The will of the people. It's no more theft than an individual declaring a plot of land as his property.

In a democracy, the "will of the people", would mean the "will of the majority of people". So the question becomes: What is the justification for the majority in a society to take, by force, money from others with or without their consent.

That compassion is more likely to found in the larger group of people.

Yes, compassion is more likely to be found in the majority, but only for itself. Consider that the majority doesn't use marijuana, so the minority of marijuana users are forced to abstain against their will. If they don't they are thrown in jail - their lives, and the lives of their families, are destroyed. There are many examples of this disparity in compassion in modern, "tolerant" democracies.

Indeed, and this is a shame. But the majority growing together in morality is a much greater thing than an individual dictating morality for a given area. Imagine one person owned all the land in America (which is individualism and property rights blahh) and made it a rule, a house rule, that nobody was to smoke marijuana. This is the alternative.

Of course that is to deal in the extreme, but the extreme illustrates the absurdity of something.

It's either majority rule or minority rule. It's a dichotomy, with some amalgamation of the two.

Why does anyone have to rule over another?

Because it is a basic fact of life. We're living together in finite space and so we must clash.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 8:24:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Tax to better society.

Rights don't exist. They only exist as long as they benefit society.
0x5f3759df
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 11:02:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It should be said that I am not essentially for the state, but for togetherness. I am a communist, really.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 1:26:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 8:24:57 PM, Bullish wrote:
Tax to better society.

I think that this is really what most people think about taxes: They're justified because it betters society. However, if that is what people believe, they need to be honest with themselves and with others and concede, without obscurantism, that they support a system that is predicated on violence and theft.

Rights don't exist. They only exist as long as they benefit society.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 3:19:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 1:26:18 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 11/22/2013 8:24:57 PM, Bullish wrote:
Tax to better society.

I think that this is really what most people think about taxes: They're justified because it betters society. However, if that is what people believe, they need to be honest with themselves and with others and concede, without obscurantism, that they support a system that is predicated on violence and theft.

And then you should realise that there's no alternative to that besides either private property which is essentially dictatorship or a transcendent buddhist existence alongside all other human beings, no rule, everyone's just meditating all day, stacked up on top of each other, they don't care.

Liberalism is the most sensible and moral philosophy given our circumstances.

Rights don't exist. They only exist as long as they benefit society.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 5:02:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is not thief, it is trade.

Tax is simply a price you have to pay for all the security and service offer by a gigantic, public (or private, in case of dictatorship) corporation call the government. It is not that they are taking it from you for free, they take it from you when you make use of their facility and profit from it in a commercial way (i.e. selling product under their armed protection).

In fact, if you don't make any income they don't even taxed you for make use of some of their owned property such as road, walkway etc..
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 6:20:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 3:39:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:06:29 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The will of the people. It's no more theft than an individual declaring a plot of land as his property.

In a democracy, the "will of the people", would mean the "will of the majority of people". So the question becomes: What is the justification for the majority in a society to take, by force, money from others with or without their consent.

The fact that they have a larger desire, which is the ultimate justificatory factor.

To ask "Why does the factor that justifies legitimacy justifies legitimacy" then becomes moot.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 6:37:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 1:26:18 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 11/22/2013 8:24:57 PM, Bullish wrote:
Tax to better society.

I think that this is really what most people think about taxes: They're justified because it betters society. However, if that is what people believe, they need to be honest with themselves and with others and concede, without obscurantism, that they support a system that is predicated on violence and theft.

While demagoguing individualism means to actively prevent improving society.

Note how by using certain phrases which have emotional appeal in our time allows any argument to sound better or worse. Taxation is done because to move the welfare granted in a society from one area to another, can maximise the total welfare. For example, a taxation on cigarettes or pollution in order to promote health.

Theft is a legal construct which means redistributing wealth unjustly. Taxation is the legal redistribution of wealth to fund public services. Anyone who supports any form of public service supports "theft" if we ignore the legal or just aspect of it. Life is unjust, but taxation attempts to ameliorate these injusticies, which therefore gives it legitimacy when done correctly.

Violence therefore is justified to be used in taxation, when the tax is justly put forth. Without the tax, there would be no public services or protection, and individuals would egoistically destroy land, capital and labour if they thought in the short term it would help their ends. Public protection is necessary to live peacefully. It is only because most of us live in a world with a strong and successful defence of the rule of law that we forget how chaotic life is.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 1:12:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 6:37:17 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/23/2013 1:26:18 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 11/22/2013 8:24:57 PM, Bullish wrote:
Tax to better society.

I think that this is really what most people think about taxes: They're justified because it betters society. However, if that is what people believe, they need to be honest with themselves and with others and concede, without obscurantism, that they support a system that is predicated on violence and theft.

While demagoguing individualism means to actively prevent improving society.

Note how by using certain phrases which have emotional appeal in our time allows any argument to sound better or worse.

I'm just sticking to the traditional definition of theft: Forcefully taking property from someone.

Taxation is done because to move the welfare granted in a society from one area to another, can maximise the total welfare. For example, a taxation on cigarettes or pollution in order to promote health.

That may or may not be true. However, the point is: Is this theft?

I can think of many situations where theft is justifiable. Stealing food from a grocery store to feed you family would be the classic example. And though that may be justifiable, the thief in that example would say, "I stole from the grocery store in order to feed my family." He wouldn't say, "I was engaged in a wealth redistribution program at the grocery store". I mean he could say that but it would be recognized as an absurd euphamism.

Theft is a legal construct which means redistributing wealth unjustly. Taxation is the legal redistribution of wealth to fund public services. Anyone who supports any form of public service supports "theft" if we ignore the legal or just aspect of it. Life is unjust, but taxation attempts to ameliorate these injusticies, which therefore gives it legitimacy when done correctly.

I would agree that taxation would be just if it could objectively be demonstrated that is done correctly. As it stands, societies are too complex to perform a utilitarian calulation like that and be certain of the results. Thus if the legitamacy of taxation rests on the amelioration of injustices, that legitamacy can never be shown to be objectivily true. And given that almost everyone has a different opinion on the legitamacy of any particular tax, it is certain that we never get close to the objective utility of any given tax. Therefore, I don't think the legitamacy of any tax can be demonstrated to be objectively true.


Violence therefore is justified to be used in taxation, when the tax is justly put forth. Without the tax, there would be no public services or protection, and individuals would egoistically destroy land, capital and labour if they thought in the short term it would help their ends. Public protection is necessary to live peacefully. It is only because most of us live in a world with a strong and successful defence of the rule of law that we forget how chaotic life is.

That's pretty much what I was asking for: An admission that the state is predicated on violence and theft.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 3:24:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 1:12:01 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 11/23/2013 6:37:17 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/23/2013 1:26:18 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 11/22/2013 8:24:57 PM, Bullish wrote:
Tax to better society.

I think that this is really what most people think about taxes: They're justified because it betters society. However, if that is what people believe, they need to be honest with themselves and with others and concede, without obscurantism, that they support a system that is predicated on violence and theft.

While demagoguing individualism means to actively prevent improving society.

Note how by using certain phrases which have emotional appeal in our time allows any argument to sound better or worse.

I'm just sticking to the traditional definition of theft: Forcefully taking property from someone.

The typical definition of murder is "the ending of a life of another". Rhetoric is not ameliorated by defining a term.

Taxation is done because to move the welfare granted in a society from one area to another, can maximise the total welfare. For example, a taxation on cigarettes or pollution in order to promote health.

That may or may not be true. However, the point is: Is this theft?

I can think of many situations where theft is justifiable. Stealing food from a grocery store to feed you family would be the classic example. And though that may be justifiable, the thief in that example would say, "I stole from the grocery store in order to feed my family." He wouldn't say, "I was engaged in a wealth redistribution program at the grocery store". I mean he could say that but it would be recognized as an absurd euphamism.

And this is my point of rhetoric. They are both the same - the difference is, the former is using pleasant language to promote the idea, the latter is putting it bluntly as the general rule. To generalise the first:

(1) It is morally justifiable to steal to feed your starving family.

My objection is this: you ought not need to steal. There ought to be a state of affairs where one does not has to steal, but instead one is provided for by those who can provide. Therefore, the generalisation becomes:

(2) It is morally justifiable for wealth to be redistributed in order to feed your starving family.

My objection now becomes "why does it have to be personal"? Why is it that there is only moral worth attached based on naked nepotism? So let us rephrase:

(3) It is morally justifiable to redistribute wealth in order to feed those who are in need of food.

Now, my objection is twofold. Firstly, redistributing wealth to feed a glutton is unjustified, so we need to restrict. Secondly, redistributing wealth based only on food is unfair: housing, for example, or clothing, is also important. I'd say that amelioration of any of the five evils noted in the Beveridge report is what needs to be tackled. Therefore, my final formulation becomes:

(4) The redistribution of wealth in order to combat the five evils of society (squalor, ignorance, want, idleness, and disease) is morally justifiable.

Now, the examples given are debatable (Beveridge explicitly restricts them, and I agree, that this ought only to be done to such an extent where the individual cannot take over and do so themselves), but the point has clearly been made: wealth redistribution is justifiable; taxation is wealth redistribution, and thus tax is justifiable. Now, when theft is done for wealth redistribution it may also be justifiable. So I think we can agree here on your argument.


Theft is a legal construct which means redistributing wealth unjustly. Taxation is the legal redistribution of wealth to fund public services. Anyone who supports any form of public service supports "theft" if we ignore the legal or just aspect of it. Life is unjust, but taxation attempts to ameliorate these injusticies, which therefore gives it legitimacy when done correctly.

I would agree that taxation would be just if it could objectively be demonstrated that is done correctly. As it stands, societies are too complex to perform a utilitarian calulation like that and be certain of the results.

I acknowledge your concern here, but contrary to what you have said I think it can and has been done. We can check the opportunities each person has, and commit a sample or census to examine how rigid class is. We can identify the restricting factors and combat them. Again, I appeal to the Beveridge report here as a solution.


Violence therefore is justified to be used in taxation, when the tax is justly put forth. Without the tax, there would be no public services or protection, and individuals would egoistically destroy land, capital and labour if they thought in the short term it would help their ends. Public protection is necessary to live peacefully. It is only because most of us live in a world with a strong and successful defence of the rule of law that we forget how chaotic life is.

That's pretty much what I was asking for: An admission that the state is predicated on violence and theft.

Alright, and what does this accomplish? All of human interaction involves latent threats of violence and theft. They are just overt without the state. The state is the force which uses violence and theft to "steal" people's ability to be violent and to thieve without repurcussions.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 4:29:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 3:03:31 PM, vbaculum wrote:
What is the justification for a to take, by force, money from people over whom it rules?

Theft implies that there are legal grounds to persecute the government for imposing taxes on the population. Laws (to which the legal grounds are created) are subject to those that interpret it (the supreme courts of the relevant level of government). Since those courts have never interpreted taxation to be a form of theft, taxation therefore is not theft, as the legal grounds don't exist for that to be true.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 10:07:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 3:03:31 PM, vbaculum wrote:
What is the justification for a government to take, by force, money from people over whom it rules?

None.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 10:12:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 5:02:00 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
It is not thief, it is trade.

Tax is simply a price you have to pay for all the security and service offer by a gigantic, public (or private, in case of dictatorship) corporation call the government.

Trades are done with the consent of both parties.

It is not that they are taking it from you for free, they take it from you when you make use of their facility and profit from it in a commercial way (i.e. selling product under their armed protection).

That is false, taxes are not tied to use of public services, they are not tied to anything except income, property, and sales; contracts not being established for any of them.

In fact, if you don't make any income they don't even taxed you for make use of some of their owned property such as road, walkway etc..

They also prevent you from moving freely unless you use those roads and walkways.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 4:03:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 10:12:39 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/23/2013 5:02:00 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
It is not thief, it is trade.

Tax is simply a price you have to pay for all the security and service offer by a gigantic, public (or private, in case of dictatorship) corporation call the government.

Trades are done with the consent of both parties.

It is not that they are taking it from you for free, they take it from you when you make use of their facility and profit from it in a commercial way (i.e. selling product under their armed protection).

That is false, taxes are not tied to use of public services, they are not tied to anything except income, property, and sales; contracts not being established for any of them.

Income you made from a property located under their protection. If you found your employment abroad you will have to pay a government of your respect country not your birth place.

Actually I think we can probably avoid most of the tax if we live in a ship in the open sea, with sufficient energy.

In fact, if you don't make any income they don't even taxed you for make use of some of their owned property such as road, walkway etc..

They also prevent you from moving freely unless you use those roads and walkways.

Those property is not yours. You don't have the right to walk over it at the first place, and especially if it is privately own.

When it is publicly owned you have the right over it but you will have to contribute to its maintenance