Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Moral Justification for Taxation

Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 5:43:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've spent the past couple of years in AnCap territory because of the whole issue of coerced taxation. I couldn't reconcile the inherently violent nature of confiscating someone's property to give to someone else.

However, now I'm starting to find a sort of loophole that justifies taxation. Because all currency is now fiat and supplied at will by the government, what right do we (I, you, anyone) have to it in the first place? It's now just a bunch of (increasingly) digitally stored numbers constantly being added and subtracted.

Can one just argue that taxes are just the "fee" for usiing the convenient medium of exchange provided and managed by the state?

This is directed espcially at the "taxes = theft" crowd.
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 6:53:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 6:02:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
money would exist without a fiat system.

And in that case I wouldn't support taxing the cows/gold/seashells or whatever I'm bartering with.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 7:22:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 6:53:49 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
At 6/13/2012 6:02:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
money would exist without a fiat system.

And in that case I wouldn't support taxing the cows/gold/seashells or whatever I'm bartering with.

the state isn't taxing the money you currently own. It's taxing your income and property.
If they just taxed your money, then people would just spend the money right away, and hyperinflation would occur.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 10:12:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 6:02:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
money would exist without a fiat system.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 9:42:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 5:43:57 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
I've spent the past couple of years in AnCap territory because of the whole issue of coerced taxation. I couldn't reconcile the inherently violent nature of confiscating someone's property to give to someone else.

However, now I'm starting to find a sort of loophole that justifies taxation. Because all currency is now fiat and supplied at will by the government, what right do we (I, you, anyone) have to it in the first place? It's now just a bunch of (increasingly) digitally stored numbers constantly being added and subtracted.

Can one just argue that taxes are just the "fee" for usiing the convenient medium of exchange provided and managed by the state?

This is directed espcially at the "taxes = theft" crowd.

Naw, that's not how I've interpreted it at all. I don't consider money a product its own, except in the consideration of currency.

Instead, I consider government an entity that is established and thus, respected by the people. As far as humans are concerned, its a necessary aspect of the "sophisticated" and "modern" human construct. For this administration to function in a capitalistic society, it requires funding, as these people will not simply act as governmental officials for free. How could they feed their families if they're just volunteering their entire lives?

Taxation is our society's funding to our government. That's why it makes sense that we would stop paying them if we don't respect or acknowledge our government, as so many other societies have done in the past. The fact is that, without taxes, we couldn't have government, and theoretically (and very likely, operatively), this society would collapse.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 9:45:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
And before anyone says "but, you technically have to pay taxes," you technically have to pay for every service you receive, and government is a public service. Taxes are what they charge.

You have to pay your utility bills, too. They're just like taxes. They're non-negotiable. You don't pay them, you don't get necessities to live. It's reality.

That's why "AnCap" is imaginary.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 2:54:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 9:45:17 AM, Ren wrote:
And before anyone says "but, you technically have to pay taxes," you technically have to pay for every service you receive, and government is a public service. Taxes are what they charge.

You have to pay your utility bills, too. They're just like taxes. They're non-negotiable. You don't pay them, you don't get necessities to live. It's reality.

That's why "AnCap" is imaginary.

I only have to pay for services if I consent to have the services in the first place. You cannot give me a service and then force me to pay. At best, you can give me a gift and then let me decide whether or not I should give anything in return.
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 3:22:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 5:43:57 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
I've spent the past couple of years in AnCap territory because of the whole issue of coerced taxation. I couldn't reconcile the inherently violent nature of confiscating someone's property to give to someone else.

However, now I'm starting to find a sort of loophole that justifies taxation. Because all currency is now fiat and supplied at will by the government, what right do we (I, you, anyone) have to it in the first place? It's now just a bunch of (increasingly) digitally stored numbers constantly being added and subtracted.

Can one just argue that taxes are just the "fee" for usiing the convenient medium of exchange provided and managed by the state?

This is directed espcially at the "taxes = theft" crowd.

I feel like such a cliched LD debator for bringing up Social Contract Theory, but that's what morally justifies taxation for me. It states that the citizens accept the government for protection and the fulfillment of their interests, and in return the citizens concede certain rights, one of these being the right to not be taxed. So when you open a business in the US, or work in a business in the US you give the government a little in order for them letting you work there.

TL,DR: SCT states if you don't like it, you can get out :P
My legend begins in the 12th century
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 4:32:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 9:42:37 AM, Ren wrote:

Instead, I consider government an entity that is established and thus, respected by the people. As far as humans are concerned, its a necessary aspect of the "sophisticated" and "modern" human construct. For this administration to function in a capitalistic society, it requires funding, as these people will not simply act as governmental officials for free. How could they feed their families if they're just volunteering their entire lives?

When did we establish the government? Did anyone currently alive have a say? Did women, African Americans, and anyone else prohibited from voting for the guys who decided to form the government have a say? The idea that the people as some sort of vague collective established the government is completely false and unsupported. A select group of men created the government and then forced their decision on everyone else.

Taxation is our society's funding to our government. That's why it makes sense that we would stop paying them if we don't respect or acknowledge our government, as so many other societies have done in the past. The fact is that, without taxes, we couldn't have government, and theoretically (and very likely, operatively), this society would collapse.

That would be nice, no government. And no justification for society collapsing. Institutionalized force is probably the most anti-social thing I can actually think of.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 6:35:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 4:32:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:

When did we establish the government? Did anyone currently alive have a say? Did women, African Americans, and anyone else prohibited from voting for the guys who decided to form the government have a say? The idea that the people as some sort of vague collective established the government is completely false and unsupported. A select group of men created the government and then forced their decision on everyone else.

Government is established every moment we accept it. Everyone alive has a say. There is no one in office now throughout the government at large who has no one alive that contributed to them being there. People in the government don't get there by birthright, unless you're talking about the fact that it's limited to the upper class. Everyone in the government was hired.

African Americans can currently vote, as can women and the LGBT community.

That would be nice, no government. And no justification for society collapsing. Institutionalized force is probably the most anti-social thing I can actually think of.

I don't believe people are nearly reasonable, rational, or responsible enough to govern themselves without an official apparatus for governance.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 6:39:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 2:54:23 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/16/2012 9:45:17 AM, Ren wrote:
And before anyone says "but, you technically have to pay taxes," you technically have to pay for every service you receive, and government is a public service. Taxes are what they charge.

You have to pay your utility bills, too. They're just like taxes. They're non-negotiable. You don't pay them, you don't get necessities to live. It's reality.

That's why "AnCap" is imaginary.

I only have to pay for services if I consent to have the services in the first place. You cannot give me a service and then force me to pay. At best, you can give me a gift and then let me decide whether or not I should give anything in return.

See quasi-contracts
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 6:59:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 6:35:33 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/16/2012 4:32:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:

When did we establish the government? Did anyone currently alive have a say? Did women, African Americans, and anyone else prohibited from voting for the guys who decided to form the government have a say? The idea that the people as some sort of vague collective established the government is completely false and unsupported. A select group of men created the government and then forced their decision on everyone else.

Government is established every moment we accept it. Everyone alive has a say. There is no one in office now throughout the government at large who has no one alive that contributed to them being there. People in the government don't get there by birthright, unless you're talking about the fact that it's limited to the upper class. Everyone in the government was hired.

They were hired by people participating in governmental process. Not only does your point not refute my point that this doesn't create legitimate obligation on those who choose not to participate but your point about tacit consent fails to take into account the fact that government was forced on the populace. Just because someone doesn't call the cops on you for theft doesn't mean it's not theft. Likewise, since the government controls force in its territory there's no real way to fight against it. That doesn't mean everyone in the U.S. accepts it and doesn't mean contract signed centuries ago impose legitimate obligation.

African Americans can currently vote, as can women and the LGBT community.

Lol my point was that at the time of the government's creation most of the populace could not vote. That means that the social contract is a fabricated illusion and the government's conception was due to a small minority forcing their will on the populace. If most people didn't have a say in the creation of government, why do you think they have any obligation to follow it?

That would be nice, no government. And no justification for society collapsing. Institutionalized force is probably the most anti-social thing I can actually think of.

I don't believe people are nearly reasonable, rational, or responsible enough to govern themselves without an official apparatus for governance.

Of course, I get it. People are irrational and stupid. However, they aren't so irrational and stupid that they can't successfully differentiate and vote into office the altruistic elite who aren't irrational and stupid. The point that people are unfit to rule themselves is incompatible with the idea that they are fit to have any control over the government apparatus.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 7:25:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 5:43:57 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
However, now I'm starting to find a sort of loophole that justifies taxation. Because all currency is now fiat and supplied at will by the government , what right do we (I, you, anyone) have to it in the first place? It's now just a bunch of (increasingly) digitally stored numbers constantly being added and subtracted.
The only reason such currency is accepted is that a. All debts in "dollars," which was previously a standard of gold, were required retroactively to be payable in that fiat; i.e., a forcible violation of contract; and b, you are required to pay a debt in dollars for production; transactions, and other such things involving real goods, not for possession of dollars. If I never touched a dollar but made a fortune in gold, men with guns would come and demand that I pay my taxes, in a currency which I have never owned. The taxation is praxeologically prior to the possession of currency.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And before anyone says "but, you technically have to pay taxes," you technically have to pay for every service you receive, and government is a public service. Taxes are what they charge.
You have to pay your utility bills, too. They're just like taxes. They're non-negotiable. You don't pay them, you don't get necessities to live.
You just gave the proof that they are different you idgit. The government doesn't withdraw services for not paying your taxes, it sends men with guns after you. It is optional to pay your utility bills-- you can go without the utility. Don't want electric, don't have to pay. Don't want a social safety net-- too damn bad, that man has a gun.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 7:31:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I feel like such a cliched LD debator for bringing up Social Contract Theory, but that's what morally justifies taxation for me. It states that the citizens accept the government for protection and the fulfillment of their interests, and in return the citizens concede certain rights, one of these being the right to not be taxed.
Its statement is a lie. There is no such entity as "the citizens." There is you, there is me. I am different from you. Just because you accept something doesn't mean I do.

A contract requires unanimous consent. Any party not consenting to a contract cannot be contractually bound. Calling anything that attempts to affect a nonconsenter a contract is dishonest.

Government is established every moment we accept it.
There's no entity called "we"

See quasi-contracts
That's not an argument.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 7:56:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'll just adress what's related to me
At 6/16/2012 7:31:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I feel like such a cliched LD debator for bringing up Social Contract Theory, but that's what morally justifies taxation for me. It states that the citizens accept the government for protection and the fulfillment of their interests, and in return the citizens concede certain rights, one of these being the right to not be taxed.
Its statement is a lie. There is no such entity as "the citizens." There is you, there is me. I am different from you. Just because you accept something doesn't mean I do.
You're half right. there is a me, and there is a you. Where you're wrong is that we both hold the title of citizen. Living on US soil and receiving the protection of the US military makes you a US citizen, just like living in a landlord's property makes you that landlord's tenant, regardless of what you want to calll yourself. Of course this applies to any nation.

A contract requires unanimous consent. Any party not consenting to a contract cannot be contractually bound. Calling anything that attempts to affect a nonconsenter a contract is dishonest.
The contract in this context is an implied contract, through your own actions you're accepting the contract. If you don't want to recieve the benefits of living in a country in exchange for a few liberties, then you're more than entitled to leave that country. Claiming you don't accept it while performing all the actions needed to accept it and living witht he benefits included in the Social Contract make you included in the social contract.
My legend begins in the 12th century
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 7:57:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 7:25:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

The only reason such currency is accepted is that a. All debts in "dollars," which was previously a standard of gold, were required retroactively to be payable in that fiat; i.e., a forcible violation of contract; and b, you are required to pay a debt in dollars for production; transactions, and other such things involving real goods, not for possession of dollars. If I never touched a dollar but made a fortune in gold, men with guns would come and demand that I pay my taxes, in a currency which I have never owned. The taxation is praxeologically prior to the possession of currency.

Maybe I'm ignorant of the tax code, but I don't think you do. Bartered goods aren't taxed, are they? Your gold woul only be taxed as capital gains if you liquidate part of it, exchanging it for dollars. How do you even determine such arbitrary value anyway?

If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll have to rethink my whole stance. Because then the state would pretty much force me to liquidate some of my assets, and that doesn't fly with me.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 8:06:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 7:31:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I feel like such a cliched LD debator for bringing up Social Contract Theory, but that's what morally justifies taxation for me. It states that the citizens accept the government for protection and the fulfillment of their interests, and in return the citizens concede certain rights, one of these being the right to not be taxed.
Its statement is a lie. There is no such entity as "the citizens." There is you, there is me. I am different from you. Just because you accept something doesn't mean I do.
You're half right. there is a me, and there is a you. Where you're wrong is that we both hold the title of citizen.
You didn't say anything about "citizen," you said "The citizens." Not "Some citizens," but "The citizens." "The citizens did x" treats "the citizens" as an entity, or at least declares that every citizen unanimously did x.

Living on US soil and receiving the protection of the US military makes you a US citizen, just like living in a landlord's property makes you that landlord's tenant, regardless of what you want to calll yourself.
Not just like. You don't tend to default to a particular property, you have to make an actual choice to be a tenant.

A contract requires unanimous consent. Any party not consenting to a contract cannot be contractually bound. Calling anything that attempts to affect a nonconsenter a contract is dishonest.
The contract in this context is an implied contract
Implied by what action?

through your own actions you're accepting the contract. If you don't want to recieve the benefits of living in a country in exchange for a few liberties, then you're more than entitled to leave that country.
Not leaving a country is not an action. You cannot imply a contract by taking no action at all. To claim otherwise is a mockery of justice.
Furthermore, the government has no rightful claim to full land ownership in its jurisdiction, as it did not improve all that land-- no improvement it has made is threatened by someone using some of that land. It has a rightful claim to jurisdiction (until it violates someone's rights, which it does). That's all. Just like a broadcaster only owns that broadcast frequency, they don't own every piece of land that the broadcast reaches. A farmer doesn't acquire airspace by farming.

Claiming you don't accept it while performing all the actions needed to accept it
Again, you haven't described an action. You've described inaction.

and living witht he benefits included in the Social Contract
There is no option to refuse government benefits. Even if you leave you still have to cross a few roads.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 8:09:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Maybe I'm ignorant of the tax code, but I don't think you do. Bartered goods aren't taxed, are they?
http://www.irs.gov...

Your gold woul only be taxed as capital gains if you liquidate part of it, exchanging it for dollars.
False. If this were true, then the adoption of fiat currency would not have worked.

How do you even determine such arbitrary value anyway?
The same way the government determines your property tax-- they estimate how similar goods are sold when people do pay cash for them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 8:10:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The same way the government determines your property tax-- they estimate how similar goods are sold when people do pay cash for them.
And mind you, if they were adopting fiat currency without a previous "dollar" gold standard, they would just make up rules for determining arbitrary value. They're the government, they do that sort of thing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 8:13:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 7:56:16 PM, TheOrator wrote:
I'll just adress what's related to me
At 6/16/2012 7:31:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I feel like such a cliched LD debator for bringing up Social Contract Theory, but that's what morally justifies taxation for me. It states that the citizens accept the government for protection and the fulfillment of their interests, and in return the citizens concede certain rights, one of these being the right to not be taxed.
Its statement is a lie. There is no such entity as "the citizens." There is you, there is me. I am different from you. Just because you accept something doesn't mean I do.
You're half right. there is a me, and there is a you. Where you're wrong is that we both hold the title of citizen. Living on US soil and receiving the protection of the US military makes you a US citizen, just like living in a landlord's property makes you that landlord's tenant, regardless of what you want to calll yourself. Of course this applies to any nation.

You're assuming the legitimacy of government sovereignty in your decision of whether or not government has legitimate sovereignty. Your argument is that since we live in a territory in which government has sovereignty, government has sovereignty over us. You can't just assume the conclusion in your premises brah, that's called begging the question.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 8:27:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Once again I'll address that which is addressed to me.
At 6/16/2012 8:06:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/16/2012 7:31:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I feel like such a cliched LD debator for bringing up Social Contract Theory, but that's what morally justifies taxation for me. It states that the citizens accept the government for protection and the fulfillment of their interests, and in return the citizens concede certain rights, one of these being the right to not be taxed.
Its statement is a lie. There is no such entity as "the citizens." There is you, there is me. I am different from you. Just because you accept something doesn't mean I do.
You're half right. there is a me, and there is a you. Where you're wrong is that we both hold the title of citizen.
You didn't say anything about "citizen," you said "The citizens." Not "Some citizens," but "The citizens." "The citizens did x" treats "the citizens" as an entity, or at least declares that every citizen unanimously did x.
Every citizen of a country unanimously lives in a country, so they are unanimously expected to abide by that country's rules.

Living on US soil and receiving the protection of the US military makes you a US citizen, just like living in a landlord's property makes you that landlord's tenant, regardless of what you want to calll yourself.
Not just like. You don't tend to default to a particular property, you have to make an actual choice to be a tenant.
Just like you have an actual choice to leave the country. I can see an exception when it comes to those living in poverty and don't have the means to leave the country, but your stance reminds me of a roomate who refuses to pay rent then complains when they're evicted.


A contract requires unanimous consent. Any party not consenting to a contract cannot be contractually bound. Calling anything that attempts to affect a nonconsenter a contract is dishonest.
The contract in this context is an implied contract
Implied by what action?
I thought this was clear throughout my statement, living on a nation's soil and accepting their protection.

through your own actions you're accepting the contract. If you don't want to recieve the benefits of living in a country in exchange for a few liberties, then you're more than entitled to leave that country.
Not leaving a country is not an action. You cannot imply a contract by taking no action at all. To claim otherwise is a mockery of justice.
No, but choosing to live in a country, work on a country's soil, buy property in that country, and making the conscious decision to stay in a country are all actions, all of which have you entitled to follow the SC. To follow all the terms which lead you to enter a contract and accept the benefits, then say the equivalent of "sorry, we didn't shake on it" isn't exactly taking justice seriously.
My legend begins in the 12th century
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 8:29:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 8:13:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/16/2012 7:56:16 PM, TheOrator wrote:
I'll just adress what's related to me
At 6/16/2012 7:31:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I feel like such a cliched LD debator for bringing up Social Contract Theory, but that's what morally justifies taxation for me. It states that the citizens accept the government for protection and the fulfillment of their interests, and in return the citizens concede certain rights, one of these being the right to not be taxed.
Its statement is a lie. There is no such entity as "the citizens." There is you, there is me. I am different from you. Just because you accept something doesn't mean I do.
You're half right. there is a me, and there is a you. Where you're wrong is that we both hold the title of citizen. Living on US soil and receiving the protection of the US military makes you a US citizen, just like living in a landlord's property makes you that landlord's tenant, regardless of what you want to calll yourself. Of course this applies to any nation.

You're assuming the legitimacy of government sovereignty in your decision of whether or not government has legitimate sovereignty. Your argument is that since we live in a territory in which government has sovereignty, government has sovereignty over us. You can't just assume the conclusion in your premises brah, that's called begging the question.
I'm assuming that if there is a government, then that government is a sovereign one, yes. I'm assuming that if you agree to live under the jurisdiction of that government, then it's fair to assume their sovereignty. Would you mind pointing out why that's wrong?
My legend begins in the 12th century
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 8:49:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
.
At 6/16/2012 8:06:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/16/2012 7:31:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I feel like such a cliched LD debator for bringing up Social Contract Theory, but that's what morally justifies taxation for me. It states that the citizens accept the government for protection and the fulfillment of their interests, and in return the citizens concede certain rights, one of these being the right to not be taxed.
Its statement is a lie. There is no such entity as "the citizens." There is you, there is me. I am different from you. Just because you accept something doesn't mean I do.
You're half right. there is a me, and there is a you. Where you're wrong is that we both hold the title of citizen.
You didn't say anything about "citizen," you said "The citizens." Not "Some citizens," but "The citizens." "The citizens did x" treats "the citizens" as an entity, or at least declares that every citizen unanimously did x.
Every citizen of a country unanimously lives in a country, so they are unanimously expected to abide by that country's rules.
I hereby declare that place you live to be Bendoveria. The rules of Bendoveria are bend over. As citizen of Bendoveria you are unanimously expected to abide by those rules. What's wrong with this picture and why doesn't it apply to your argument?


Living on US soil and receiving the protection of the US military makes you a US citizen, just like living in a landlord's property makes you that landlord's tenant, regardless of what you want to calll yourself.
Not just like. You don't tend to default to a particular property, you have to make an actual choice to be a tenant.
Just like you have an actual choice to leave the country.
Not just like. You not only have a choice to leave a landlord's property, you aren't there in the first place if you never made a choice. (Note that since governments have collaborated, there is literally nowhere on earth to run from taxes).

I can see an exception when it comes to those living in poverty and don't have the means to leave the country, but your stance reminds me of a roomate who refuses to pay rent then complains when they're evicted.
A landlord, note, built a house. The roommate agreed to pay rent when he entered the house.
The government of the United States did nothing analogous to the entirety of the territory it claims. And I've never even been off US soil, I certainly never chose to enter it.



A contract requires unanimous consent. Any party not consenting to a contract cannot be contractually bound. Calling anything that attempts to affect a nonconsenter a contract is dishonest.
The contract in this context is an implied contract
Implied by what action?
I thought this was clear throughout my statement, living on a nation's soil and accepting their protection.
The first is not an action, the second is what you're arguing is implied in the first place, which makes your statement circular. I was living on the soil the government claims (not "This nation's soil," there is no entity called a "nation" that rightfully owns all that soil). as before I ever committed a single action in my life.

Not leaving a country is not an action. You cannot imply a contract by taking no action at all. To claim otherwise is a mockery of justice.
No, but choosing to live in a country
I never chose to do that.
,: work on a country's soil
There's no such entity called a "country" that owns all that soil, and there is no rational relation between the choice to work and the tax paid. Working asks nothing of the government.

buy property in that country
That rationally implies paying the previous owner, not the government.

and making the conscious decision to stay in a country
I never made such a decision, there's just nowhere to go that meets standard. If I lost consciousness tomorrow and never made a decision again, I would still be in the territory labelled the United States of America, just as I was before I was ever conscious, as I always have been. No action.

To follow all the terms which lead you to enter a contract and accept the benefits, then say the equivalent of "sorry, we didn't shake on it" isn't exactly taking justice seriously.
Nonsense for the above reasons.

I ask you: What makes you think the USFG is the rightful owner of every square inch of land, air and water within its borders?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 9:08:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 8:29:48 PM, TheOrator wrote:
At 6/16/2012 8:13:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:

You're assuming the legitimacy of government sovereignty in your decision of whether or not government has legitimate sovereignty. Your argument is that since we live in a territory in which government has sovereignty, government has sovereignty over us. You can't just assume the conclusion in your premises brah, that's called begging the question.

I'm assuming that if there is a government, then that government is a sovereign one, yes. I'm assuming that if you agree to live under the jurisdiction of that government, then it's fair to assume their sovereignty. Would you mind pointing out why that's wrong?

You're wrong in that you assume legitimate sovereignty over a given geographical area by a government in the first place as the means to support it's legitimate sovereignty over people in that area. Where do you justify the first premise though?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 11:57:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 6:59:58 PM, socialpinko wrote:

They were hired by people participating in governmental process.

Of course they were hired by people in relevant fields. Who would you suppose should hire politicians and governmental officials?

Not only does your point not refute my point that this doesn't create legitimate obligation on those who choose not to participate

You didn't really establish that point. If that's what you're saying, then the fact is that those who choose not to participate in this society should leave, or they should amalgamate and make things change, if they're a large enough proportion of the populace. It's really that simple, and I'm not being myopic. The public services and accoutrements, from pavement to the power grid, was paid for mostly by taxes. Everything that you know of as your home town got there mostly from taxes. Everything around you is essentially borne of taxes. My point was that we have a government, because we want a government; there's a minority of us that don't, but they're too few to changed the established paradigm.

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with any of it... I'm just saying that if you're going to embrace capitalism and the monetary system, taxes are part of how you make it functional. Because, as individualistic as people pretend to be, the fact is that we need to cooperate in order to accomplish anything meaningful at all.

but your point about tacit consent fails to take into account the fact that government was forced on the populace.

That's preposterous. We are not amidst any real civil unrest; in fact, I'd say that Americans are generally complacent. But, moreover, things are the way they are, because we accept it to be that way. Our government exists because "we" acknowledge it. And, by "we," I mean all of us, including those that join the police academy as well as those that join the military and act as active agents to the government. Because, if it's not one of us, it's our siblings, or parents, or aunts or uncles or whomever, one of them serves the government in one way or another.

And, if we all just stopped one day -- if everyone in their blue collar government positions with the shiitty pay and excellent benefits stopped going to work, and all the police stopped pretending as though they had any real authority, and servicemen the military ignorant to the greater scheme stopped acknowledging their superiors, then we'd have nothing at all. And, this is fact.

Just because someone doesn't call the cops on you for theft doesn't mean it's not theft. Likewise, since the government controls force in its territory there's no real way to fight against it. That doesn't mean everyone in the U.S. accepts it and doesn't mean contract signed centuries ago impose legitimate obligation.

The government is representative of the society it serves. Could you give me some real life examples of this governmental hostility that takes real estate away from people and claims it as governmental property, and other such tyrannical behavior?

Lol my point was that at the time of the government's creation most of the populace could not vote. That means that the social contract is a fabricated illusion and the government's conception was due to a small minority forcing their will on the populace.

That's not true. They presented it to the populace, and that populace sanctioned it. Without the cooperation of the populace, it would have been nothing at all. It's not as though those people drew from the populace an army with which they controlled the rest of the populace or something. I mean, what are you proposing, really? The founding fathers were not tyrannical men, and in fact, most of them greatly opposed a strong central government and political parties.

If most people didn't have a say in the creation of government, why do you think they have any obligation to follow it?

Everyone had a say with the creation of a government. If most people didn't want a government, there wouldn't be one.

Of course, I get it. People are irrational and stupid. However, they aren't so irrational and stupid that they can't successfully differentiate and vote into office the altruistic elite

The altruistic elite?

Who is this altruistic elite?