Total Posts:286|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do taxes = stealing?

OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:57:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
In life I have heard a good number of people state that taxes are just a way for the government to steal money from the citizenry, yet their general response isn't to end the stealing, but just have them steal a bit less then they do (which usually is stated in the same sentence as "but add or expand these programs").

In the last little bit on this forum in a particular thread, I read taxes being related to (or replaced) with government thievery several times so I thought, since I am continually curious on this, is government taxation the equivalent of stealing. And is it only stealing if it's for something you don't agree with?

*This is more, personal thoughts and ideas and less debate btw.*
Noblesse Oblige
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:04:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Nope taxes equals a successful country capable of competing with other developed nations . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:08:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If taxes are stealing and stealing is bad then the rational conclusion is either Minarchy or Anarchy.

I don't think it's stealing but I have a different reason than most would argue. I agree with the maxim "property is theft". What does that mean? Well, it's talking about Capitalistic property, the kind we are familiar with. You see, there are many different kinds of property, endless different kinds actually. A Minarchist thinks their Capitalistic government is the smallest form of government possible because it initiates no force. But that's not entirely accurate. It only doesn't initiates force so long as it is within the context of Capitalistic property theory.

Let us introduce three different theories.

Use-theory: You own what you use.

Common-theory: Everyone owns everything equally.

No property theory: Nobody owns anything.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:16:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"In life I have heard a good number of people state that taxes are just a way for the government to steal money from the citizenry, yet their general response isn't to end the stealing, but just have them steal a bit less then they do (which usually is stated in the same sentence as "but add or expand these programs")."

You haven't talked to enough anarchists :)
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:17:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Private property is not arbitrary—it follows from self-ownership. One cannot separate what one does from who one is. Someone can't say, "Oh, no, I didn't murder that guy, my actions did." One's actions, or labors, are merely extensions of one's self; one cannot assault one without assaulting the other. Locking an innocent person in a prison cell is aggression because it prevents me from moving freely, even if it doesn't physically harm my body. And legitimately acquired private property is merely an extension of one's labor. If I build a farm, then the private property ethic doesn't mean that I literally own the physical land there. It means ownership in the same sense that I own myself—that I have the right to exclusive control over it. So, by laboring to grow crops, I have acquired the right to continue my labor, rather owning that fraction of the Earth. If someone were to interfere with this right, by, say, taking my farm itself, or merely taking a fraction of my labor through taxes, then they have not merely assaulted my things, but my labor itself, and by extension, myself.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:22:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 4:17:20 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Private property is not arbitrary—it follows from self-ownership. One cannot separate what one does from who one is. Someone can't say, "Oh, no, I didn't murder that guy, my actions did." One's actions, or labors, are merely extensions of one's self; one cannot assault one without assaulting the other. Locking an innocent person in a prison cell is aggression because it prevents me from moving freely, even if it doesn't physically harm my body. And legitimately acquired private property is merely an extension of one's labor. If I build a farm, then the private property ethic doesn't mean that I literally own the physical land there. It means ownership in the same sense that I own myself—that I have the right to exclusive control over it. So, by laboring to grow crops, I have acquired the right to continue my labor, rather owning that fraction of the Earth. If someone were to interfere with this right, by, say, taking my farm itself, or merely taking a fraction of my labor through taxes, then they have not merely assaulted my things, but my labor itself, and by extension, myself.

The concept of self-ownership is redundant and produces unintended results. For instance, owning yourself implies that you may sell yourself--and this is precisely what Capitalism is founded on, a system of supposed "self-ownership" where everyone must either sell their freedom to others or be one of the ones who buys said freedom.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:24:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 4:16:10 PM, djsherin wrote:
"In life I have heard a good number of people state that taxes are just a way for the government to steal money from the citizenry, yet their general response isn't to end the stealing, but just have them steal a bit less then they do (which usually is stated in the same sentence as "but add or expand these programs")."

You haven't talked to enough anarchists :)

You would actually be correct; at least true anarchists and not the kids in high school who wear black and think it's cool to "fight the man" and how anarchy > non-anarchy(?). If I had the chance to have a discussion with a legitimate anarchist it'd actually be awesome XD

But no, the "taxes = stealing" crowd I'm referring too, or I've at least have had personally contact with, aren't anarchists. Just Tea Party/Corporatist/Conservatives/Republicans.
Noblesse Oblige
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:26:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 4:24:01 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:16:10 PM, djsherin wrote:
"In life I have heard a good number of people state that taxes are just a way for the government to steal money from the citizenry, yet their general response isn't to end the stealing, but just have them steal a bit less then they do (which usually is stated in the same sentence as "but add or expand these programs")."

You haven't talked to enough anarchists :)

You would actually be correct; at least true anarchists and not the kids in high school who wear black and think it's cool to "fight the man" and how anarchy > non-anarchy(?). If I had the chance to have a discussion with a legitimate anarchist it'd actually be awesome XD

But no, the "taxes = stealing" crowd I'm referring too, or I've at least have had personally contact with, aren't anarchists. Just Tea Party/Corporatist/Conservatives/Republicans.

It's your lucky day, this site has been over-run with Anarchists.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:27:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 4:22:56 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:17:20 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Private property is not arbitrary—it follows from self-ownership. One cannot separate what one does from who one is. Someone can't say, "Oh, no, I didn't murder that guy, my actions did." One's actions, or labors, are merely extensions of one's self; one cannot assault one without assaulting the other. Locking an innocent person in a prison cell is aggression because it prevents me from moving freely, even if it doesn't physically harm my body. And legitimately acquired private property is merely an extension of one's labor. If I build a farm, then the private property ethic doesn't mean that I literally own the physical land there. It means ownership in the same sense that I own myself—that I have the right to exclusive control over it. So, by laboring to grow crops, I have acquired the right to continue my labor, rather owning that fraction of the Earth. If someone were to interfere with this right, by, say, taking my farm itself, or merely taking a fraction of my labor through taxes, then they have not merely assaulted my things, but my labor itself, and by extension, myself.

The concept of self-ownership is redundant and produces unintended results. For instance, owning yourself implies that you may sell yourself--and this is precisely what Capitalism is founded on, a system of supposed "self-ownership" where everyone must either sell their freedom to others or be one of the ones who buys said freedom.
Self-ownership merely means that each person has the exclusive right to use his or her own body. And it's impossible to deny without contradicting yourself. For to write that very post, you must exercise your right to the exclusive control over your own body. You didn't need to ask my permission, you just used your own body as you saw fit, as is your right.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:28:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 4:17:20 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Private property is not arbitrary—it follows from self-ownership. One cannot separate what one does from who one is. Someone can't say, "Oh, no, I didn't murder that guy, my actions did." One's actions, or labors, are merely extensions of one's self; one cannot assault one without assaulting the other. Locking an innocent person in a prison cell is aggression because it prevents me from moving freely, even if it doesn't physically harm my body. And legitimately acquired private property is merely an extension of one's labor. If I build a farm, then the private property ethic doesn't mean that I literally own the physical land there. It means ownership in the same sense that I own myself—that I have the right to exclusive control over it. So, by laboring to grow crops, I have acquired the right to continue my labor, rather owning that fraction of the Earth. If someone were to interfere with this right, by, say, taking my farm itself, or merely taking a fraction of my labor through taxes, then they have not merely assaulted my things, but my labor itself, and by extension, myself.

Then please clarify this for me, incase I misinterpreted your statement. Using your example, you don't actually own the property, however you own the income that your labor produces from the property. So it would be fine to tax the property you are laboring on (property tax), but not the income your labor produced (income tax)?
Noblesse Oblige
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:28:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 4:26:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:24:01 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:16:10 PM, djsherin wrote:
"In life I have heard a good number of people state that taxes are just a way for the government to steal money from the citizenry, yet their general response isn't to end the stealing, but just have them steal a bit less then they do (which usually is stated in the same sentence as "but add or expand these programs")."

You haven't talked to enough anarchists :)

You would actually be correct; at least true anarchists and not the kids in high school who wear black and think it's cool to "fight the man" and how anarchy > non-anarchy(?). If I had the chance to have a discussion with a legitimate anarchist it'd actually be awesome XD

But no, the "taxes = stealing" crowd I'm referring too, or I've at least have had personally contact with, aren't anarchists. Just Tea Party/Corporatist/Conservatives/Republicans.

It's your lucky day, this site has been over-run with Anarchists.

Really? I've only seen about FOUR!
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:30:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 4:28:06 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:17:20 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Private property is not arbitrary—it follows from self-ownership. One cannot separate what one does from who one is. Someone can't say, "Oh, no, I didn't murder that guy, my actions did." One's actions, or labors, are merely extensions of one's self; one cannot assault one without assaulting the other. Locking an innocent person in a prison cell is aggression because it prevents me from moving freely, even if it doesn't physically harm my body. And legitimately acquired private property is merely an extension of one's labor. If I build a farm, then the private property ethic doesn't mean that I literally own the physical land there. It means ownership in the same sense that I own myself—that I have the right to exclusive control over it. So, by laboring to grow crops, I have acquired the right to continue my labor, rather owning that fraction of the Earth. If someone were to interfere with this right, by, say, taking my farm itself, or merely taking a fraction of my labor through taxes, then they have not merely assaulted my things, but my labor itself, and by extension, myself.

Then please clarify this for me, incase I misinterpreted your statement. Using your example, you don't actually own the property, however you own the income that your labor produces from the property.
It would be more accurate to say that I have the exclusive right to use that land, not that I "own" either the land itself or the income.

So it would be fine to tax the property you are laboring on (property tax), but not the income your labor produced (income tax)?
All taxes are taxes on income--the difference between an income tax and a property tax is how the taxes are calculated, not what they are.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:31:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 4:28:22 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:26:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:24:01 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:16:10 PM, djsherin wrote:
"In life I have heard a good number of people state that taxes are just a way for the government to steal money from the citizenry, yet their general response isn't to end the stealing, but just have them steal a bit less then they do (which usually is stated in the same sentence as "but add or expand these programs")."

You haven't talked to enough anarchists :)

You would actually be correct; at least true anarchists and not the kids in high school who wear black and think it's cool to "fight the man" and how anarchy > non-anarchy(?). If I had the chance to have a discussion with a legitimate anarchist it'd actually be awesome XD

But no, the "taxes = stealing" crowd I'm referring too, or I've at least have had personally contact with, aren't anarchists. Just Tea Party/Corporatist/Conservatives/Republicans.

It's your lucky day, this site has been over-run with Anarchists.

Really? I've only seen about FOUR!

Well, that's what the non-anarchists are whining about anyway.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:33:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 4:24:01 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:16:10 PM, djsherin wrote:
"In life I have heard a good number of people state that taxes are just a way for the government to steal money from the citizenry, yet their general response isn't to end the stealing, but just have them steal a bit less then they do (which usually is stated in the same sentence as "but add or expand these programs")."

You haven't talked to enough anarchists :)

You would actually be correct; at least true anarchists and not the kids in high school who wear black and think it's cool to "fight the man" and how anarchy > non-anarchy(?). If I had the chance to have a discussion with a legitimate anarchist it'd actually be awesome XD

But no, the "taxes = stealing" crowd I'm referring too, or I've at least have had personally contact with, aren't anarchists. Just Tea Party/Corporatist/Conservatives/Republicans.

Yes I was referring to true anarchists not the high school kids haha.

Not that I'm a minarchist, but I believe the reason they are "okay" with theft in the form of taxation for a small group of services is because they believe the private sector can't provide them and that therefore, it's ok for the government to tax and provide them since society benefits (things like roads, courts, national defense, etc.). Again, not my position but I think that's idea.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:34:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 4:31:45 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:28:22 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:26:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:24:01 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:16:10 PM, djsherin wrote:
"In life I have heard a good number of people state that taxes are just a way for the government to steal money from the citizenry, yet their general response isn't to end the stealing, but just have them steal a bit less then they do (which usually is stated in the same sentence as "but add or expand these programs")."

You haven't talked to enough anarchists :)

You would actually be correct; at least true anarchists and not the kids in high school who wear black and think it's cool to "fight the man" and how anarchy > non-anarchy(?). If I had the chance to have a discussion with a legitimate anarchist it'd actually be awesome XD

But no, the "taxes = stealing" crowd I'm referring too, or I've at least have had personally contact with, aren't anarchists. Just Tea Party/Corporatist/Conservatives/Republicans.

It's your lucky day, this site has been over-run with Anarchists.

Really? I've only seen about FOUR!

Well, that's what the non-anarchists are whining about anyway.

Ugh and I keep telling them that it's NOT TRUE. Two anarchists became active at the same time and all of the sudden, BAM! It's "over run". If anything, it's LIBERTARIANS that rule the site. <smh>
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:36:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 4:27:27 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:22:56 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:17:20 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Private property is not arbitrary—it follows from self-ownership. One cannot separate what one does from who one is. Someone can't say, "Oh, no, I didn't murder that guy, my actions did." One's actions, or labors, are merely extensions of one's self; one cannot assault one without assaulting the other. Locking an innocent person in a prison cell is aggression because it prevents me from moving freely, even if it doesn't physically harm my body. And legitimately acquired private property is merely an extension of one's labor. If I build a farm, then the private property ethic doesn't mean that I literally own the physical land there. It means ownership in the same sense that I own myself—that I have the right to exclusive control over it. So, by laboring to grow crops, I have acquired the right to continue my labor, rather owning that fraction of the Earth. If someone were to interfere with this right, by, say, taking my farm itself, or merely taking a fraction of my labor through taxes, then they have not merely assaulted my things, but my labor itself, and by extension, myself.

The concept of self-ownership is redundant and produces unintended results. For instance, owning yourself implies that you may sell yourself--and this is precisely what Capitalism is founded on, a system of supposed "self-ownership" where everyone must either sell their freedom to others or be one of the ones who buys said freedom.
Self-ownership merely means that each person has the exclusive right to use his or her own body. And it's impossible to deny without contradicting yourself. For to write that very post, you must exercise your right to the exclusive control over your own body. You didn't need to ask my permission, you just used your own body as you saw fit, as is your right.

It's a semantical tragedy. It's meaningless to say you OWN yourself, you ARE yourself. One is a made-up concept with farther reaching implications and the other is much more simple and self-evident. It is just as you cannot SELL your labor, you ARE your labor--otherwise your labor would go to work while you stayed in bed.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:44:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 4:30:19 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Then please clarify this for me, incase I misinterpreted your statement. Using your example, you don't actually own the property, however you own the income that your labor produces from the property.
It would be more accurate to say that I have the exclusive right to use that land, not that I "own" either the land itself or the income.

So it would be fine to tax the property you are laboring on (property tax), but not the income your labor produced (income tax)?
All taxes are taxes on income--the difference between an income tax and a property tax is how the taxes are calculated, not what they are.

Mmm, I don't think that's how property taxes are calculated, at least for the majority of property (as the majority of property is residential/non-income earning). Residential propery tax is determined by a rather arbitrary (imo) calculation of what the property is worth, whose amount is then taxed. Though you could say that said residential property value is based on what the property could sell for, meaning the generation of income (though what the property is valued at rarely equals what it sells for).

And going back to the topic, how does this tie into taxes equaling theft?
Noblesse Oblige
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:49:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 4:44:25 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:30:19 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Then please clarify this for me, incase I misinterpreted your statement. Using your example, you don't actually own the property, however you own the income that your labor produces from the property.
It would be more accurate to say that I have the exclusive right to use that land, not that I "own" either the land itself or the income.

So it would be fine to tax the property you are laboring on (property tax), but not the income your labor produced (income tax)?
All taxes are taxes on income--the difference between an income tax and a property tax is how the taxes are calculated, not what they are.

Mmm, I don't think that's how property taxes are calculated, at least for the majority of property (as the majority of property is residential/non-income earning). Residential propery tax is determined by a rather arbitrary (imo) calculation of what the property is worth, whose amount is then taxed. Though you could say that said residential property value is based on what the property could sell for, meaning the generation of income (though what the property is valued at rarely equals what it sells for).
I don't know anything about how property taxes are calculated, so I'm not sure what you mean by "I don't think that's how property taxes are calculated." I just said that they're calculated differently than income taxes. My point was that all taxes come out of the money you earn, so all taxes are taxes on income, even if they aren't calculated to be a % of your income.

And going back to the topic, how does this tie into taxes equaling theft?
Refer back to my first post in this thread. If a non-criminal owns legitimately acquired private property, then taking it away is theft, whether it is taken by a burglar or the government. The real question is--why wouldn't taxation be theft? What difference do you think there is?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:52:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 4:36:26 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:27:27 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:22:56 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:17:20 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Private property is not arbitrary—it follows from self-ownership. One cannot separate what one does from who one is. Someone can't say, "Oh, no, I didn't murder that guy, my actions did." One's actions, or labors, are merely extensions of one's self; one cannot assault one without assaulting the other. Locking an innocent person in a prison cell is aggression because it prevents me from moving freely, even if it doesn't physically harm my body. And legitimately acquired private property is merely an extension of one's labor. If I build a farm, then the private property ethic doesn't mean that I literally own the physical land there. It means ownership in the same sense that I own myself—that I have the right to exclusive control over it. So, by laboring to grow crops, I have acquired the right to continue my labor, rather owning that fraction of the Earth. If someone were to interfere with this right, by, say, taking my farm itself, or merely taking a fraction of my labor through taxes, then they have not merely assaulted my things, but my labor itself, and by extension, myself.

The concept of self-ownership is redundant and produces unintended results. For instance, owning yourself implies that you may sell yourself--and this is precisely what Capitalism is founded on, a system of supposed "self-ownership" where everyone must either sell their freedom to others or be one of the ones who buys said freedom.
Self-ownership merely means that each person has the exclusive right to use his or her own body. And it's impossible to deny without contradicting yourself. For to write that very post, you must exercise your right to the exclusive control over your own body. You didn't need to ask my permission, you just used your own body as you saw fit, as is your right.

It's a semantical tragedy. It's meaningless to say you OWN yourself, you ARE yourself. One is a made-up concept with farther reaching implications and the other is much more simple and self-evident. It is just as you cannot SELL your labor, you ARE your labor--otherwise your labor would go to work while you stayed in bed.
Do you deny that each person has the exclusive right to use his or her own body? Because that's what I'm saying when I say "self-ownership." You aren't really offering a counter argument. And why wouldn't one be able to sell their labor? If I have the exclusive right to my own body, then I can exercise that right any way I choose, as long as I'm not hurting anyone else. If I want to build a farm and eat my own crops, being entirely self-sufficient, that is my right. If I want to trade my labor to someone else, in exchange for compensation, then that too is my right. You may not like it, but you have no right to tell others they cannot enter into such agreements.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:59:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 4:49:20 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I don't know anything about how property taxes are calculated, so I'm not sure what you mean by "I don't think that's how property taxes are calculated." I just said that they're calculated differently than income taxes. My point was that all taxes come out of the money you earn, so all taxes are taxes on income, even if they aren't calculated to be a % of your income.

And going back to the topic, how does this tie into taxes equaling theft?
Refer back to my first post in this thread. If a non-criminal owns legitimately acquired private property, then taking it away is theft, whether it is taken by a burglar or the government. The real question is--why wouldn't taxation be theft? What difference do you think there is?

Ah I see. I get what you were talking about now.

As for your question, the reason why I personally would say taxation is not theft is because 1.) you are asked if it if alright to take taxes out of income either by a vote or through our elected representative. 2.) we are not being forced to pay taxes in the sense that we were asked, the majority agreed, as such permission was given. It is the same as getting a loan from a bank. You ask the bank for a loan so you can purchase something, ad in exchange the bank gets interest in order to generate income for themselves. Similarly, the government asks us for taxes (income) and in exchange we get roads, schools, fire departments, etc.
Noblesse Oblige
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 5:03:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 4:59:39 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:49:20 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I don't know anything about how property taxes are calculated, so I'm not sure what you mean by "I don't think that's how property taxes are calculated." I just said that they're calculated differently than income taxes. My point was that all taxes come out of the money you earn, so all taxes are taxes on income, even if they aren't calculated to be a % of your income.

And going back to the topic, how does this tie into taxes equaling theft?
Refer back to my first post in this thread. If a non-criminal owns legitimately acquired private property, then taking it away is theft, whether it is taken by a burglar or the government. The real question is--why wouldn't taxation be theft? What difference do you think there is?

Ah I see. I get what you were talking about now.

As for your question, the reason why I personally would say taxation is not theft is because 1.) you are asked if it if alright to take taxes out of income either by a vote or through our elected representative. 2.) we are not being forced to pay taxes in the sense that we were asked, the majority agreed, as such permission was given. It is the same as getting a loan from a bank. You ask the bank for a loan so you can purchase something, ad in exchange the bank gets interest in order to generate income for themselves. Similarly, the government asks us for taxes (income) and in exchange we get roads, schools, fire departments, etc.

Why can the majority give the government permission to take from the minority? And it is completely different from getting a loan from the bank. With the loan, it is voluntary. With taxes, they are not. The government does not "ask" for taxes, it takes them, and throws you in jail if you don't pay them. It doesn't matter what they give people in return, because the initial transfer wasn't voluntary.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 5:04:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 5:01:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'm actually writing a research paper for my Bioethics class on self-ownership. I find that arguments for its existence are really funny.

Have you read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's arguments? I like his much more than all the others I've read.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 5:07:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 5:03:04 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:59:39 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:49:20 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I don't know anything about how property taxes are calculated, so I'm not sure what you mean by "I don't think that's how property taxes are calculated." I just said that they're calculated differently than income taxes. My point was that all taxes come out of the money you earn, so all taxes are taxes on income, even if they aren't calculated to be a % of your income.

And going back to the topic, how does this tie into taxes equaling theft?
Refer back to my first post in this thread. If a non-criminal owns legitimately acquired private property, then taking it away is theft, whether it is taken by a burglar or the government. The real question is--why wouldn't taxation be theft? What difference do you think there is?

Ah I see. I get what you were talking about now.

As for your question, the reason why I personally would say taxation is not theft is because 1.) you are asked if it if alright to take taxes out of income either by a vote or through our elected representative. 2.) we are not being forced to pay taxes in the sense that we were asked, the majority agreed, as such permission was given. It is the same as getting a loan from a bank. You ask the bank for a loan so you can purchase something, ad in exchange the bank gets interest in order to generate income for themselves. Similarly, the government asks us for taxes (income) and in exchange we get roads, schools, fire departments, etc.

Why can the majority give the government permission to take from the minority?

1. The majority has more people.

2. The minority usually rolls over and takes it.

3. The government has a lot of guns.

And it is completely different from getting a loan from the bank. With the loan, it is voluntary. With taxes, they are not. The government does not "ask" for taxes, it takes them, and throws you in jail if you don't pay them. It doesn't matter what they give people in return, because the initial transfer wasn't voluntary.

I should probably point out that, though taxes aren't voluntary, there are plenty of people--like those in Scandinavian countries, for example--who like to pay them. The value of their "property" is less, for them, than the value of the stuff they get as a consequence of forking over the cash.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 5:08:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 5:04:26 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/21/2010 5:01:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'm actually writing a research paper for my Bioethics class on self-ownership. I find that arguments for its existence are really funny.

Have you read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's arguments? I like his much more than all the others I've read.

It's been a while. Care to give me a numbered summary?
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 5:10:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 5:07:23 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/21/2010 5:03:04 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:59:39 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 4:49:20 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I don't know anything about how property taxes are calculated, so I'm not sure what you mean by "I don't think that's how property taxes are calculated." I just said that they're calculated differently than income taxes. My point was that all taxes come out of the money you earn, so all taxes are taxes on income, even if they aren't calculated to be a % of your income.

And going back to the topic, how does this tie into taxes equaling theft?
Refer back to my first post in this thread. If a non-criminal owns legitimately acquired private property, then taking it away is theft, whether it is taken by a burglar or the government. The real question is--why wouldn't taxation be theft? What difference do you think there is?

Ah I see. I get what you were talking about now.

As for your question, the reason why I personally would say taxation is not theft is because 1.) you are asked if it if alright to take taxes out of income either by a vote or through our elected representative. 2.) we are not being forced to pay taxes in the sense that we were asked, the majority agreed, as such permission was given. It is the same as getting a loan from a bank. You ask the bank for a loan so you can purchase something, ad in exchange the bank gets interest in order to generate income for themselves. Similarly, the government asks us for taxes (income) and in exchange we get roads, schools, fire departments, etc.

Why can the majority give the government permission to take from the minority?

1. The majority has more people.

2. The minority usually rolls over and takes it.

3. The government has a lot of guns.
Very funny. I meant what gives the majority that right, as I'm sure you knew.
And it is completely different from getting a loan from the bank. With the loan, it is voluntary. With taxes, they are not. The government does not "ask" for taxes, it takes them, and throws you in jail if you don't pay them. It doesn't matter what they give people in return, because the initial transfer wasn't voluntary.

I should probably point out that, though taxes aren't voluntary, there are plenty of people--like those in Scandinavian countries, for example--who like to pay them. The value of their "property" is less, for them, than the value of the stuff they get as a consequence of forking over the cash.
And if those people were the only people that lived in those countries, I'd have no problem with taxation. Unfortunately, those people also tend to take money from people that don't want to pay taxes.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 5:10:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 5:09:17 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/21/2010 5:07:52 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Yeah, I agree with OrionsGambit. The holocaust wasn't really murder. I mean, Hitler was was elected by a majority.

The Jews were asking for it--just like women who get raped, am I right?

http://www.debate.org...
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 5:11:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 5:08:29 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/21/2010 5:04:26 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/21/2010 5:01:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'm actually writing a research paper for my Bioethics class on self-ownership. I find that arguments for its existence are really funny.

Have you read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's arguments? I like his much more than all the others I've read.

It's been a while. Care to give me a numbered summary?

What is a numbered summary? Or I could give you a link to what he wrote about it, if you'd prefer that instead.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.