Taxes are theft

[Republica Newland]

It might sound piss poor for something as complex as Healthcare,but what about Agriculture? Manufacturing? Utilities? Construction? Mining? Logging? Sanitation?

Someone has to do these jobs too.

....and they do. We have miners, and farmers, and loggers, and sanitation workers and utility pole climbers. Yes, someone has to do those jobs. They already are.

If your means of providing food, shelter, and clothing to the poor is "let them work the mines!" then what the fuck are you going to do with the miners we already have?

Mine some more.

[Kengburg]

It might sound piss poor for something as complex as Healthcare,but what about Agriculture? Manufacturing? Utilities? Construction? Mining? Logging? Sanitation?

Someone has to do these jobs too.

....and they do. We have miners, and farmers, and loggers, and sanitation workers and utility pole climbers. Yes, someone has to do those jobs. They already are.

If your means of providing food, shelter, and clothing to the poor is "let them work the mines!" then what the fuck are you going to do with the miners we already have?

It sounds somewhat like Corporatism to me.

[Kengburg]

....and they do. We have miners, and farmers, and loggers, and sanitation workers and utility pole climbers. Yes, someone has to do those jobs. They already are.

If your means of providing food, shelter, and clothing to the poor is "let them work the mines!" then what the fuck are you going to do with the miners we already have?

Mine some more.

[Sibirsky]

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.

There are other ways of paying for the services of those that cannot pay or those services themselves.

[Sibirsky]

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.

Yet another, old, tired, and useless GTFO argument.

The social contract is a myth.

[Republica Newland]

It might sound piss poor for something as complex as Healthcare,but what about Agriculture? Manufacturing? Utilities? Construction? Mining? Logging? Sanitation?

Someone has to do these jobs too.

It might sound piss poor for healthcare? It makes NO SENSE in healthcare. Or manufacturing. Or mining. Or sanitation.

Healthcare is by far the most complex of those jobs sets, but even in sanitation, you need training and some to a lot of education to do various jobs in the field. Who's going to pay for that training/education? Its going to magically happen? Who's going to upgrade those systems, and maintain them over time?

An in the end, your little plan just creates a dual society... the poor living in one area, working their way to get basic necessities, thus forever doomed to never do any better, while the rich continue to stay rich because their economy is the only one with money.

Why? My plan says that you get to choose between the private and the public sector,not that the public sector is non-existing.The public sector is run like a business.Its' "profits" go into helping the poor.

[Souseiseki]

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.

Yet another, old, tired, and useless GTFO argument.

The social contract is a myth.

i dunno, it seems like a lot of people are into it

[Sibirsky]

I need to back up the profit motive?

What fucking planet are you on?

welfare for profit

really

Not welfare.

That being said, poverty is a major contributor to crime. Including theft. So one way the better off can have less of their shit stolen is to give some of their shit to those that cannot afford it, and are forced to steal that shit in the first place.

[Mavorpen]

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.

Yet another, old, tired, and useless GTFO argument.

The social contract is a myth.

Ah yes, because a random person on the internet dispels centuries of philosophical thought with nothing more than, "lul its stoopid."

[Sibirsky]

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.

Going on and on about "fantastic debating" because he has reading comprehension problems and I have some award is a personal attack.

[Republica Newland]

I might have normally agreed.. but the money being "stolen" is going towards a better life for the people, and our country. If a boy took your ball, that would be theft. Though, if a boy took your ball, sold it for more, and got a better ball , would you be happy? Of course. This is quite a strange opinion.

Horrible Example, it is more like this:
Everyone in the class has $10, there is an idea for a pizza party, but to buy everything everyone has to give $2, everyone gives two dollars, then the class has the pizza party. If someone were to say "NO! I AM NOT GIVIN MY $2", then it wouldn't be fair for them to be attending the party, and they probably would have to go to another class, but you can't just send someone elsewhere in real life taxation, so if you do not pay your taxes, you shouldn't be entitled to the Public School, Police, etc. that everyone else pays for. So that's why we have the IRS

I completely agree.If you don't pay taxes,you don't receive shit.You pay as much taxes as you want to,and what you receive is proportional to how much you give.And you get to choose exactly what you get.

This is a lot different from "Pay taxes or go to the slammer!"

[Sibirsky]

Leave where?

Puerto Rico! No Federal Tax! Worst school systems and highest crime rate in the country, (because it does not get all the benefits tax paying states do.)

Puerto Rico is not in the US. And they also have their own taxes.

[Neo Art]

....and they do. We have miners, and farmers, and loggers, and sanitation workers and utility pole climbers. Yes, someone has to do those jobs. They already are.

If your means of providing food, shelter, and clothing to the poor is "let them work the mines!" then what the fuck are you going to do with the miners we already have?

Mine some more.

And why wouldn't we already be doing that? Do you understand anything about basic economics?

It's monsterously stupid. Your idea basically is to employ the poor DIRECTLY in the public utilities and public necessities and then "pay" them with access to those things. Instead of taxing people to raise revenue to pay people to build roads, we'll just hire the poor to build the roads, and instead of getting paid, we'll "pay" them with the right to...drive on those roads?

But of course they'll need to EAT too, so we'll hire MORE poor people to grow food for the poor people who build our roads. And we'll let them drive the roads the poor people built, and eat the food the poor people grow, and presumably wear the clothes the poor people stictched, using cotton the poor people harvested, living in homes the poor people built, with wood the poor people harvested, and we have to do this "tit for tat" exchange because we're not PAYING them anything, because we can't, because we have no money.

And presumably ALL the supplies for ALL of this, top to bottom, are part of this massive "work for benefits" supply chain, because we can't use an actual fair wages, since we don't have any money.

And of course now that we've coopted private sectory industries to feed this supply chain (we'd have to essentially nationalize industries because WE CANT PAY THEM FOR THEIR GOODS), we see a ripple effect as other business who also depended on this, either go bankrupt or are forced to adopt.

And now we have introduced beyond mere necessities but also luxuries as well. After all, the same factory that made electrical components for governmental services probably also made them for TVs as well. And since they can't support themselves on JUST that (since they can't get paid from the government), we'll have to absorb tv manufacturers too. So now "the poor" (which is starting to include EVERYBODY) works for the tv making companies, and they get TVs included in their "tit for tat".

So now everybody works for nothing, putting the fruits of their labor into a giant pool where it is then redistributed. To everybody.

Funny, I didn't think you were a communist.

Or, more to point, if your idea of providing basic necessities to the poor is make them "sing for their supper", and not be paid in cash, but from the direct products of their labor, you're basically advocating kibbutz style living where the poor are sent to "camps" where they can only wear, eat, and sleep in the things they are able to create, on their own.

[Mavorpen]

Horrible Example, it is more like this:
Everyone in the class has $10, there is an idea for a pizza party, but to buy everything everyone has to give $2, everyone gives two dollars, then the class has the pizza party. If someone were to say "NO! I AM NOT GIVIN MY $2", then it wouldn't be fair for them to be attending the party, and they probably would have to go to another class, but you can't just send someone elsewhere in real life taxation, so if you do not pay your taxes, you shouldn't be entitled to the Public School, Police, etc. that everyone else pays for. So that's why we have the IRS

I completely agree.If you don't pay taxes,you don't receive shit.You pay as much taxes as you want to,and what you receive is proportional to how much you give.And you get to choose exactly what you get.

This is a lot different from "Pay taxes or go to the slammer!"

Why should you get to freeload?

[Sibirsky]

Why the fuck should I leave my entire life behind? And for what? To go to another state and pay taxes there?

The GTFO argument is idiotic.

But you have a CHOICE to leave. What happened to that? Do you admit that on certain things you don't have a choice? Because seriously every normal person has understood this since they were 5 years old.

Yes, obviously choosing a country to live in, is just a choice. Like choosing Burger King over McDonald's.

[Dremono]

I completely agree.If you don't pay taxes,you don't receive shit.You pay as much taxes as you want to,and what you receive is proportional to how much you give.And you get to choose exactly what you get.

This is a lot different from "Pay taxes or go to the slammer!"

Why should you get to freeload?

I like this example.

[Kingdom of the Polar Bear]

Theft is a crime. Taxes are legal. How can crime be legal?

Because I reject your definition of crime and substitute it for my own.

This

[Republica Newland]

Yet another, old, tired, and useless GTFO argument.

The social contract is a myth.

Ah yes, because a random person on the internet dispels centuries of philosophical thought with nothing more than, "lul its stoopid."

You dispel logic.

[Neo Art]

The public sector is run like a business.Its' "profits" go into helping the poor.

Your plan to help the poor is to set up a business who would turn around and sell the things it made to the poor, who would have money, because they'd be paid by the business who sells things....to them?

That's....special.

[Mavorpen]

But you have a CHOICE to leave. What happened to that? Do you admit that on certain things you don't have a choice? Because seriously every normal person has understood this since they were 5 years old.

Yes, obviously choosing a country to live in, is just a choice. Like choosing Burger King over McDonald's.

So again, you admit that on certain things you do not have real choice over? Glad you agree to pay taxes then.

[Sibirsky]

Instead of answering a legitimate question in the discussion, you engage in personal attacks.

You obviously have no idea how contracts actually work.

You obviously have no idea how contracts actually work.

See, I can refuse to be constructive too. You want to end this stupid and childish game and actually debate?

A contract is an AGREEMENT. With clearly defined terms. And can only be changed when all parties agree to the changes.

Show me where agreed to this social contract. Show me where I agree to the numerous changes to it.

[Sibirsky]

That's another debate.

Is it?

Yes. We're talking about taxes. You're talking about employee's pay, vs. the money the employees make for their employers.

[Mavorpen]

You obviously have no idea how contracts actually work.

See, I can refuse to be constructive too. You want to end this stupid and childish game and actually debate?

A contract is an AGREEMENT. With clearly defined terms. And can only be changed when all parties agree to the changes.

Show me where agreed to this social contract. Show me where I agree to the numerous changes to it.

Sure. It's called living here, voting, and using any public service.

What, do you seriously think contracts must be in standard written form?

[Kengburg]

NATIONSTATES

"Where the political backwash of society come to express their extremley radical beliefs"

Home of the famous Circular Logic

[Sibirsky]

What? Are you high?

You've heard of private roads, schools and hospitals, right? You are aware that they exist?

And you are aware of the alarming amount of scandals revolving around private hospitals, and the huge tuition to go to a private school, right?

Yes. What is your point?

You are aware that competition for the masses, would reduce costs, right?