Income Taxes: Are They Theft?

[Distruzio]

When did I ask for citizenship?

Passive agreement by not renouncing said citizenship.

Again, when was citizenship asked for?

[Sibirsky]

You said it never happened.
In any case, it's a "bill me later" situation. Insurance could even cover it.

Yes, bill me later

So, after everything I owned is destroyed, I'm supposed to pay you now? And if I say no, what are you going to do? Not only can they probably not pay you, the service you provided has already been rendered with no real contract signed. Sorry, once again, that is not how business works.

Apparently you don't know much about business.

[Mad Monarch]

Passive agreement by not renouncing said citizenship.

Again, when was citizenship asked for?

You can always give it up. There is lots of room on the gypsie carts. (though apparently you have to leave the US first)

Just ride on down to Mexico and begin your new life now!

[Sibirsky]

No, that would be a fallacy. It's theft because something is taken from you without your consent.

And on topic. By living in this country you consent to taxes.

Being born does not imply fucking consent.

[Distruzio]

Again, when was citizenship asked for?

You can always give it up. There is lots of room on the gypsie carts. (though apparently you have to leave the US first)

Just ride on down to Mexico and begin your new life now!

That doesn't address the issue at all, and you know it. The question was "are income taxes theft?" It was not, "if you feel income taxes are theft, why don't you leave?"

[Mad Monarch]

Yes, bill me later

So, after everything I owned is destroyed, I'm supposed to pay you now? And if I say no, what are you going to do? Not only can they probably not pay you, the service you provided has already been rendered with no real contract signed. Sorry, once again, that is not how business works.

Apparently you don't know much about business.

Ok, so they have zero leverage over me and they want me to pay them? That is not how business works. They either sell a good to you or sell a service. You don't do a service and then demand payment. All that'll get you is someone saying "lol, you funny dude. Now get off my lawn".

[Jinos]

Besides which, you'd be incapable of asking for or understanding the implications of accepting it as a child.

Then at no point is the assumption that citizenship must be, somehow, revoked, a legitimate defense of theft.

The proper word is renounced.

I fail to see how you've proved me wrong. If you continue being a citizen, you are benefiting from that citizenship. If you don't wish to pay the club due, stop being a member of the club.

[Death Metal]

It's in the real world where a constitutional lawyer and professor, which you likely voted for, rapes the document every single day.

That's not the real world at all. That's the InfoWars and Lew Rockwell version of the world, which is about as true to the real world as Candy Land is.

Oh, and by the way: The NDAA and AUMF powers are actually Constitutional, as the Constitution grants the Administrative branch suspension of Habeus Corpus during invasion and insurrection, ie wartime, and we are in wartime, so don't even try to make that argument.

[Hautagne]

Oui... Monsieur Obama est un voleur!

No but seriously, taxation is theft.

[Sibirsky]

You need a definition of money?

1. A medium of exchange.
2. A unit of account.
3. A store of value.

Fiat currency fails the 3rd function.

No, that's utter bullshit. Fiat currency only fails in so far as the central bank allows it to. Furthermore, any commodity ever can easily fail at 3 under certain (non exceptional) circumstances, except when it does happen there is fuck all you can do.

Fiat currency fails at #3 by design. It has to. I mean, it can do it ok, for short periods of time, here and there, but in the long term, it cannot.

[Distruzio]

Then at no point is the assumption that citizenship must be, somehow, revoked, a legitimate defense of theft.

The proper word is renounced.

I fail to see how you've proved me wrong. If you continue being a citizen, you are benefiting from that citizenship. If you don't wish to pay the club due, stop being a member of the club.

Renounced then. Apologies.

As to the rest of your nonsense:

You can always give it up. There is lots of room on the gypsie carts. (though apparently you have to leave the US first)

Just ride on down to Mexico and begin your new life now!

That doesn't address the issue at all, and you know it. The question was "are income taxes theft?" It was not, "if you feel income taxes are theft, why don't you leave?"

[Sibirsky]

No. Money is the 3 things I stated.

Money could be metal, like coins. Or it could be anything. It could be electronic. But it must meet the criteria above. Fiat money fails the 3rd function?

So are you suggesting that we go back to using Gold and Silver as currencies?

No.

[Hydesland]

No, that's utter bullshit. Fiat currency only fails in so far as the central bank allows it to. Furthermore, any commodity ever can easily fail at 3 under certain (non exceptional) circumstances, except when it does happen there is fuck all you can do.

Fiat currency fails at #3 by design. It has to. I mean, it can do it ok, for short periods of time, here and there, but in the long term, it cannot.

Wrong.

[Zeppy]

Ron Paul gave him that power, AUMF remember?

Plus the bill was veto-proof anyway, and by signing it Obama was also able to pledge in writing not to use the power on citizens, so your argument is still invalid.

Kinda like how he promised not to use signing statements like Bush Jr., but later he did.

[Mad Monarch]

You can always give it up. There is lots of room on the gypsie carts. (though apparently you have to leave the US first)

Just ride on down to Mexico and begin your new life now!

That doesn't address the issue at all, and you know it. The question was "are income taxes theft?" It was not, "if you feel income taxes are theft, why don't you leave?"

No, your personal debate is whether or not you want citizenship and the associated dues and privileges. If you don't want them, give them up. simple as that

[Yootwopia]

No, that's utter bullshit. Fiat currency only fails in so far as the central bank allows it to. Furthermore, any commodity ever can easily fail at 3 under certain (non exceptional) circumstances, except when it does happen there is fuck all you can do.

Fiat currency fails at #3 by design. It has to. I mean, it can do it ok, for short periods of time, here and there, but in the long term, it cannot.

Right can you just give an example of a currency that has permanently held its value?

[Inutoland]

My tuppence-ha'penny on the whole question (and it's probably naive and/or been said before better):

Now, with that disclaimer, I can't really believe this is a serious matter of debate. Taxation =/= theft. The reason we have government is to create order and restrain predation by the strong/wealthy/powerful on the weak/poor/powerless. If we expect this function of government, someone needs to be paid to achieve it, and privatising law enforcement is a seriously bad idea. (I can see it now. Policeman stops mugger in the act of extorting money, then realises that the muggee hasn't paid their service fee, and lets the crime continue. Bad idea, as I said.)

But even so, If you expect the government to do something, it needs money to make it happen, even if it's just paying the poor schmucks who legislate. No money, no legislation, no enforcement of the law, no public services at all. If you are going to give the government no operating budget at all, you might as well not have a government at all. This is anarchy, which, human nature being what it is, generally results in predation.

And you're going to get really bad legislative ability if your government can't even pay itself. Government then of necessity becomes the exclusive province of the super-wealthy, as they are the only ones who can afford to get involved. And the super-rich bring their own perspectives to legislation, and will, in anything but highly unusual circumstances, legislate in a fashion which is skewed to themselves and their social class.

[Sibirsky]

I never said the 1990s formula is the true formula, just that it is closer to reality.

Less hedonics, substitution and geometric weighting. All these are verifiable. While the BLS does not release the exact formula, they admit that they engage is such practices.

And you have yet to explain what makes said practices bad, other than they produce results you personally disagree with.

A declining standard of living for grandma?

Fuck that bitch. She deserves it.

[Yootwopia]

And you have yet to explain what makes said practices bad, other than they produce results you personally disagree with.

A declining standard of living for grandma?

Fuck that bitch. She deserves it.

Surely the problem there is people being tight and using fixed payments rather than adjusting for inflation?

[Mad Monarch]

Sibirsky ran away from both of my debates again. He and his comrades seem to really like doing that

[Zeppy]

...grandma?

Fuck that bitch. She deserves it.

You enjoy grandmas too much.

[United Dependencies]

Taxes are not theft:
1. Because the thieves set the definitions of theft.
2. Because it's necessary.

Merriam and Webster were theives?
The people who write the oxford english dictionary are thieves?
The people who operate dictionary.com are Thieves?
All other writers of dictionaries or word defining material are thieves?

[Hydesland]

Taxes are not theft:
1. Because the thieves set the definitions of theft.
2. Because it's necessary.

Merriam and Webster were theives?
The people who write the oxford english dictionary are thieves?
The people who operate dictionary.com are Thieves?
All other writers of dictionaries or word defining material are thieves?

To be fair, dictionaries don't actually create definitions, only report them.

[Sibirsky]

No. Money is the 3 things I stated.

Money could be metal, like coins. Or it could be anything. It could be electronic. But it must meet the criteria above. Fiat money fails the 3rd function?

Number 3 isn't even a real definition, because its subject to change and only as 'valuable' as we consider it. Even Gold, the oft toted "staple" that should back our currency, would be worthless, in say, a post-apocalyptic situation where bread is worth more. (As an example.)

Clearly, paper money is valuable, because there is more "wealth" in the US (noted in fiat currency) than could be measured in gold.

That's bullshit. The nominal amount of wealth in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) has nothing to do with it's real welath.

Do you not understand what "store of value" means? Your money decreases in value. That's not storing it.

But the wealth generated offsets that decrease in value.

What wealth generated? If I stick $1000 under the mattress what wealth is generated? Wealth is destroyed. I take it out 10 years later, and we had 4% inflation per year, I have $664.83 in purchasing power of the dollars I originally put under the mattress.

[Distruzio]

Sibirsky ran away from both of my debates again. He and his comrades seem to really like doing that

It's likely he moved on to more appealing discussions.