Taxes are theft

[Mavorpen]

The question should be "Is taxation wrong, and why?". Taxation isn't wrong, provided it goes towards government investment in infrastructure, education, welfare, healthcare and other things that are ultimately beneficial to society. Taxation is a necessary and inevitable part of living in a complex modern society. Whether it's technically theft, extortion or anything else we usually see as "bad" is irrelevant.

All of that could be privately and voluntarily funded.

You've said this without ever backing it up. We get it, you like lala-land.

[Sibirsky]

The government doesn't print money. In fact, it can't. Only the Fed can print money.

Which is the fucking government >.<

Technically, no.

[Kengburg]

To make this very simple: Taxes give back. That is what differenteates between theft and taxation. Look at public schools, look at police departments, those are proof that taxes do in fact give back. Theft is taking with no return. Taxation is taking with a return.

I used to justify taxation like that but it's just not satisfactory.
Why? Well answer this: Would it be okay if Tesco charged you 1.50 every week off your salary, although offering you free milk?

No, because milk is not as desireable as public schools, libraries, and police departments. Milk is worthless, yet the ones I stated before are not. Milk is not as valuable.

[Sibirsky]

I don't give a fuck about the legal definition.
Taxes are not voluntary and are paid under a threat of force.

That matters why?
One pays a shop for goods because stealing will also result in the application of force.

And?

I can not buy from them. And not give them my money. If I want their stuff, I will pay them for it. I have choices.

[Norstal]

All of that could be privately and voluntarily funded.

You've said this without ever backing it up. We get it, you like lala-land.

"Trade you my PS4 for 100 dowries."

"NO WAY MAN! That shit is worth 10 dowries!"

"Uhhh...what's the inflation rate again?"

[Mavorpen]

That matters why?
One pays a shop for goods because stealing will also result in the application of force.

And?

I can not buy from them. And not give them my money. If I want their stuff, I will pay them for it. I have choices.

Of course you do. We're wondering why you don't use that power to leave the state.

[Souseiseki]

Getting to keep more (or all) of the product of your labor, is not infringing on anyone's rights. Unlike rape or murder.

I like how you slipped in "more", implying you already knew that a post like this was coming, pointing out that if today I made a company £200,000 I am not going to get paid £200,000.

[Sibirsky]

For the love of god, we are not discussing legal definitions.

The government does not own the land I live on. We have private property, here in the US.

The social contract is more bullshit.

And yet the government can in fact take your land without your permission provided they compensate you.

So the social contract is bullshit because you say so? What fantastic debating.

Do you even know what a contract is?

You should cut down on the personal attacks and try some actual arguments.

[Mavorpen]

And yet the government can in fact take your land without your permission provided they compensate you.

So the social contract is bullshit because you say so? What fantastic debating.

Do you even know what a contract is?

You should cut down on the personal attacks and try some actual arguments.

So instead of refuting me you ask me a pointless question that didn't move the discussion forward. Great argument. I remain astounded by this amazing debating.

[Kengburg]

The question should be "Is taxation wrong, and why?". Taxation isn't wrong, provided it goes towards government investment in infrastructure, education, welfare, healthcare and other things that are ultimately beneficial to society. Taxation is a necessary and inevitable part of living in a complex modern society. Whether it's technically theft, extortion or anything else we usually see as "bad" is irrelevant.

All of that could be privately and voluntarily funded.

Oh, so some millionaires would fund the whole US government out of the kindness of their hearts? Try to come up with $15,000,000,000,000

[Republica Newland]

And?

I can not buy from them. And not give them my money. If I want their stuff, I will pay them for it. I have choices.

Of course you do. We're wondering why you don't use that power to leave the state.

We're wondering why you can't seem to understand that this is an ideological rather than practical argument?

[Enadail]

The question should be "Is taxation wrong, and why?". Taxation isn't wrong, provided it goes towards government investment in infrastructure, education, welfare, healthcare and other things that are ultimately beneficial to society. Taxation is a necessary and inevitable part of living in a complex modern society. Whether it's technically theft, extortion or anything else we usually see as "bad" is irrelevant.

All of that could be privately and voluntarily funded.

In the past, many of these items were privately funded, and it went horribly. The days of private fire departments, church run schools for only those who could afford it... thankfully we're past the days when we thought of our selves as individuals and realized we're a community. You're welcome to live in the 1850's if you want, just don't drag the rest of us back there with you.

The notion of private everything falls apart with the simplest logic. If everything was private and voluntarily funded, things like schools would quickly fall apart: why would someone without children pay to schooling? Where would people without disposable income send their kids? If fire departments were all private and someone couldn't pay, if their house went up, it'd likely damage other houses in the area before burning to the ground, at which point there is now blighted land in the neighborhood. If cops were all private, someone couldn't pay, they could get murdered, leaving a criminal on the loose, now with more experience to get away with it next time.

The "pay for what you want" logic is anything but logical. It assumes everyone has spare money (a lot of spare money) and assumes that success is solely based on personal efforts, both of which couldn't be further from the truth.

[Norstal]

--

[Neo Art]

The question should be "Is taxation wrong, and why?". Taxation isn't wrong, provided it goes towards government investment in infrastructure, education, welfare, healthcare and other things that are ultimately beneficial to society. Taxation is a necessary and inevitable part of living in a complex modern society. Whether it's technically theft, extortion or anything else we usually see as "bad" is irrelevant.

All of that could be privately and voluntarily funded.

it COULD, but that leads to even further gaps in efficiency, wherein a service is provided ONLY to those who can afford it, and have the service available to them locally. If we accept certain things as base line fundamental, then we run into significant ethical problems regarding cutting those people off from those services.

Which, at the end of the day, it's all a matter of ethics. We are faced with two potentially ethically questional propositions, "taking my money" or "poor people don't get access to hospitals".

We're reasonable people, and I think, can reasonably see the other side. I get why you might have ethical concerns with coerced taxation. I have ethical concerns with poor people starving and dying from treatable diseases.

And like reasonable people, we choose the path we can most live with. That which gives us the least ethical concerns and moral questions. I find taxes to be the lesser of two evils. You may disagree.

Society has responsibility to people extending merely beyond "make sure others don't kill them, hurt them, or take their stuff". We both agree it's the government's job to protect basic rights. I merely have a more expansive view on what basic human rights are. You see being murdered, raped, or stolen from as a violation of basic rights. I see dying cold and hungry in the streets from easily treatable illnesses to be an equal violation of basic human rights.

And to further the point of "why is it ok for the government to take my money but not for you to take my money" my answer is, and always has been "because they're the government"

But to elaborate upon it, it's ok because the government is an institution designed to protect the rights of its people. It is empowered to do all things necessary and proper to effectuate its goal.

My argument is therefore not "the government can do it because it's the government, SO THERE".

My argument is, and always has been "the government can do it because it needs to do so in order to protect the rights of its people, because that's what the government is for"

It's self defining, not circular. The government can do it, because it's the government, meaning the government can do it, because it is necessary for the effectuation of its purpose. That's what it's FOR.

[Sibirsky]

Getting to keep more (or all) of the product of your labor, is not infringing on anyone's rights. Unlike rape or murder.

So you're in favor of communism?

What?

[Republica Newland]

All of that could be privately and voluntarily funded.

Oh, so some millionaires would fund the whole US government out of the kindness of their hearts? Try to come up with $15,000,000,000,000

Disregard that,fire up the press,PRINT MOAR MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111

[Souseiseki]

Of course you do. We're wondering why you don't use that power to leave the state.

We're wondering why you can't seem to understand that this is an ideological rather than practical argument?

i might or i might not but i like to think that if everyday was a insult to everything i believe in i'd at least try and leave

[Sibirsky]

All of that could be privately and voluntarily funded.

You've said this without ever backing it up. We get it, you like lala-land.

I need to back up the profit motive?

What fucking planet are you on?

[Republica Newland]

All of that could be privately and voluntarily funded.

it COULD, but that leads to even further gaps in efficiency, wherein a service is provided ONLY to those who can afford it, and have the service available to them locally. If we accept certain things as base line fundamental, then we run into significant ethical problems regarding cutting those people off from those services.

Which, at the end of the day, it's all a matter of ethics. We are faced with two potentially ethically questional propositions, "taking my money" or "poor people don't get access to hospitals".

We're reasonable people, and I think, can reasonably see the other side. I get why you might have ethical concerns with coerced taxation. I have ethical concerns with poor people starving and dying from treatable diseases.

And like reasonable people, we choose the path we can most live with. That which gives us the least ethical concerns and moral questions. I find taxes to be the lesser of two evils. You may disagree.

Society has responsibility to people extending merely beyond "make sure others don't kill them, hurt them, or take their stuff". We both agree it's the government's job to protect basic rights. I merely have a more expansive view on what basic human rights are. You see being murdered, raped, or stolen from as a violation of basic rights. I see dying cold and hungry in the streets from easily treatable illnesses to be an equal violation of basic human rights.

How does letting people do whatever they want to do with their money and hiring those that can't afford public benefits in public institutions which are providing those public benefits and paying them back in public benefits rather than money? Self-sufficient,no?

[Mavorpen]

Of course you do. We're wondering why you don't use that power to leave the state.

We're wondering why you can't seem to understand that this is an ideological rather than practical argument?

Which is why I'm making an ideological point. Why would you ideologically be opposed to simply moving? Honestly if you're not here to debate don't waste my time.

[Enadail]

And yet the government can in fact take your land without your permission provided they compensate you.

So the social contract is bullshit because you say so? What fantastic debating.

Do you even know what a contract is?

You should cut down on the personal attacks and try some actual arguments.

I don't see a personal attack. I do now see you don't know what the social contract is.

And yah, a contract is an agreement between two or more parties. The social contract is the implicit agreement between members of a society for communal gain. Every place in the world has it, its a societal construct. If you don't like it, go live alone in some tundra, its the only place you'll be free of it.

[Republica Newland]

We're wondering why you can't seem to understand that this is an ideological rather than practical argument?

i might or i might not but i like to think that if everyday was a insult to everything i believe in i'd at least try and leave

Leave where?

[Mavorpen]

You've said this without ever backing it up. We get it, you like lala-land.

I need to back up the profit motive?

What fucking planet are you on?

The one where people don't make one claim then backtrack when asked for evidence. I think you should try that sometime.

[Souseiseki]

You've said this without ever backing it up. We get it, you like lala-land.

I need to back up the profit motive?

What fucking planet are you on?

welfare for profit

really

[Enadail]

it COULD, but that leads to even further gaps in efficiency, wherein a service is provided ONLY to those who can afford it, and have the service available to them locally. If we accept certain things as base line fundamental, then we run into significant ethical problems regarding cutting those people off from those services.

Which, at the end of the day, it's all a matter of ethics. We are faced with two potentially ethically questional propositions, "taking my money" or "poor people don't get access to hospitals".

We're reasonable people, and I think, can reasonably see the other side. I get why you might have ethical concerns with coerced taxation. I have ethical concerns with poor people starving and dying from treatable diseases.

And like reasonable people, we choose the path we can most live with. That which gives us the least ethical concerns and moral questions. I find taxes to be the lesser of two evils. You may disagree.

Society has responsibility to people extending merely beyond "make sure others don't kill them, hurt them, or take their stuff". We both agree it's the government's job to protect basic rights. I merely have a more expansive view on what basic human rights are. You see being murdered, raped, or stolen from as a violation of basic rights. I see dying cold and hungry in the streets from easily treatable illnesses to be an equal violation of basic human rights.

How does letting people do whatever they want to do with their money and hiring those that can't afford public benefits in public institutions which are providing those public benefits and paying them back in public benefits rather than money? Self-sufficient,no?

What? That sentence doesn't even...

In the end, you don't just "pack back someone in public benefits"... those benefits have to require some funding at some point down the chain... they don't just magically appear.