Taxes are a form of Theft

[Infected Mushroom]

Yes, but the customer isn't born a customer

Just follow me.

Does the business have the right to charge only on a subscription model if they want?

a business can charge however they want, finding a customer is a different matter

[The Rebel Alliances]

Taxes pay for your police, your roads, and depending on where you live, your education, health, and food.

It's hardly theft. It's just paying for the upkeep of things you take for granted.

Similar to how you pay the mafia in Grant Theft Auto for protection fees?

Did...did you just compare the government to a GTA game? Cant tell if serious....

No it is not theft. It would be if they only used it to enrich themselves, but taxes collected go toward the upkeep of society. To the roads you drive on, the schools you attend ect ect. By now I am sure this has been explained many times.

It's not being stolen, you are receiving services for them.

And you 'Revolutionary Realization' is nothing of the sort, more like Edgy for Life m8 politics.

[Infected Mushroom]

As I've said numerous times, the so-called ''social contract'' is nothing more or less than a misappropriation/misunderstanding of what a contract fundamentally is

Use whatever term you wish.

the state starts to exercise jurisdiction the moment you are born, it doesn't wait until you ''consent''

Society consents for you. If you don't want to consent, we have a marketplace of ideas where you can propose your anarcho-capitalist wonderland. As you have done. What's the problem?

Then its not really consent.

[Nerotysia]

Then its not really consent.

So this boils down to a semantics argument. Do you have any actual critiques?

[Galloism]

Just follow me.

Does the business have the right to charge only on a subscription model if they want?

a business can charge however they want, finding a customer is a different matter

Ok, now the government owns all roads. These roads create interlocking grids across the country.

Does the government have the right to say that no one may use or cross any road that it owns unless they get a subscription? Can the terms of the subscription prohibit selling goods or services to anyone who lives domestically that doesn't have a subscription? Why or why not?

[Infected Mushroom]

a business can charge however they want, finding a customer is a different matter

Ok, now the government owns all roads. These roads create interlocking grids across the country.

Does the government have the right to say that no one may use or cross any road that it owns unless they get a subscription? Can the terms of the subscription prohibit selling goods or services to anyone who lives domestically that doesn't have a subscription? Why or why not?

That's fine.

[Galloism]

Ok, now the government owns all roads. These roads create interlocking grids across the country.

Does the government have the right to say that no one may use or cross any road that it owns unless they get a subscription? Can the terms of the subscription prohibit selling goods or services to anyone who lives domestically that doesn't have a subscription? Why or why not?

That's fine.

Now, since almost no one can live without either purchasing goods or services or crossing a road, what would the functional difference be?

[Infected Mushroom]

That's fine.

Now, since almost no one can live without either purchasing goods or services or crossing a road, what would the functional difference be?

I am not following

[Galloism]

Now, since almost no one can live without either purchasing goods or services or crossing a road, what would the functional difference be?

I am not following

Try and imagine a life where you never use or cross a road, and cannot purchase goods or services from anyone who does.

[Infected Mushroom]

I am not following

Try and imagine a life where you never use or cross a road, and cannot purchase goods or services from anyone who does.

Okay. I'm visualising it in my head.

And?

[Galloism]

Try and imagine a life where you never use or cross a road, and cannot purchase goods or services from anyone who does.

Okay. I'm visualising it in my head.

And?

That means no internet. No electricity. No water. No telephones. You can't buy food, or anything else. You have to make your own clothes. You can't really work because you have no access to produce anything for sale. It wouldn't do you good to make any money anyway, because you can't buy anything.

You're talking about a life with no income. If you lived that lifestyle, you wouldn't owe any income taxes under the current system anyway.

So what's the difference?

[Infected Mushroom]

Okay. I'm visualising it in my head.

And?

That means no internet. No electricity. No water. You can't buy food, or anything else. You have to make your own clothes. You can't really work because you have no access to produce anything for sale. It wouldn't do you good to make any money anyway, because you can't buy anything.

You're talking about a life with no income. If you lived that lifestyle, you wouldn't owe any income taxes under the current system anyway.

So what's the difference?

The difference between what and what?

I am really lost.

[Galloism]

That means no internet. No electricity. No water. You can't buy food, or anything else. You have to make your own clothes. You can't really work because you have no access to produce anything for sale. It wouldn't do you good to make any money anyway, because you can't buy anything.

You're talking about a life with no income. If you lived that lifestyle, you wouldn't owe any income taxes under the current system anyway.

So what's the difference?

The difference between what and what?

I am really lost.

If the government charged under a subscription model for the roads with such terms, which you've said was ok, everyone would be forced to participate anyway whether they like it or not. You can even set it up under the exact same sliding scale terms as the current income tax system but change it to you can't cross my roads/rivers/use my sky unless you buy our annual subscription.

And in the end, you'll wind up with universal subscription system that runs functionally identically to the current income tax system.

So what's the difference?

[Infected Mushroom]

The difference between what and what?

I am really lost.

If the government charged under a subscription model for the roads with such terms, which you've said was ok, everyone would be forced to participate anyway whether they like it or not. You can even set it up under the exact same sliding scale terms as the current income tax system but change it to you can't cross my roads/rivers/use my sky unless you buy our annual subscription.

And in the end, you'll wind up with universal subscription system that runs functionally identically to the current income tax system.

So what's the difference?

How do you go from government ownership of the roads (assuming they were all built/bought by the government) to government ownership of absolutely everything? Last time I checked, most things in life are privately owned and the government actually owns very little property.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

The difference between what and what?

I am really lost.

If the government charged under a subscription model for the roads with such terms, which you've said was ok, everyone would be forced to participate anyway whether they like it or not. You can even set it up under the exact same sliding scale terms as the current income tax system but change it to you can't cross my roads/rivers/use my sky unless you buy our annual subscription.

And in the end, you'll wind up with universal subscription system that runs functionally identically to the current income tax system.

So what's the difference?

Sort of like an embargo.

[Nerotysia]

How do you go from government ownership of the roads (assuming they were all built/bought by the government) to government ownership of absolutely everything? Last time I checked, most things in life are privately owned and the government actually owns very little property.

Without a state, no property is owned, only controlled by someone. His point is that all of our modern society requires a state to exist in order to function. All of these wonderful things like phones and Internet only exist and are widely accessible because of the state.

[BK117B2]

Similar to how you pay the mafia in Grant Theft Auto for protection fees?

Did...did you just compare the government to a GTA game? Cant tell if serious....

No it is not theft. It would be if they only used it to enrich themselves, but taxes collected go toward the upkeep of society. To the roads you drive on, the schools you attend ect ect. By now I am sure this has been explained many times.

It's not being stolen, you are receiving services for them.

And you 'Revolutionary Realization' is nothing of the sort, more like Edgy for Life m8 politics.

And, as has been pointed out already, purchasing services which provide some benefit to your victim do not magically nullify a theft.

[Infected Mushroom]

How do you go from government ownership of the roads (assuming they were all built/bought by the government) to government ownership of absolutely everything? Last time I checked, most things in life are privately owned and the government actually owns very little property.

Without a state, no property is owned, only controlled by someone. His point is that all of our modern society requires a state to exist in order to function. All of these wonderful things like phones and Internet only exist and are widely accessible because of the state.

the default natural condition should be that a person owns what he creates or what someone else has agreed to give to him or sell/trade to him, with or without there being a state

the state is a facilitator, but not a precondition

there exists an independent natural moral condition

[Ararat Mountain]

Oh really? Stop being an edgy anarchist and get back to work!
taxes pay to keep the nation running! You can't keep a government working with donations!!!

[Galloism]

If the government charged under a subscription model for the roads with such terms, which you've said was ok, everyone would be forced to participate anyway whether they like it or not. You can even set it up under the exact same sliding scale terms as the current income tax system but change it to you can't cross my roads/rivers/use my sky unless you buy our annual subscription.

And in the end, you'll wind up with universal subscription system that runs functionally identically to the current income tax system.

So what's the difference?

How do you go from government ownership of the roads (assuming they were all built/bought by the government) to government ownership of absolutely everything? Last time I checked, most things in life are privately owned and the government actually owns very little property.

Here's the thing - the government owns ALL the roads, and they exercise ownship rights on the rivers and ownership rights over the sky (even if you think the sky is not a legitimate ownership right, and land rights extend upwards in the sky, then you would still have to cross over roads to get anywhere. These roads are owned by the government). The government has claimed exclusive ownership over these things. The government has even claimed ownership rights over the ocean out to 12 miles from shore.

I'm going with your insane notions that sovreignty is not a valid thing, but even under those notions, since the government owns an interlocking grid of owned land, owned rivers, and owned ocean they can effectively embargo you in your land.

They can make, as part of their subscription terms, that no one may sell goods or services transported over a road to anyone without a subscription, nor buy any goods or services produced domestically and then transport those by road or cross a road with them. You said this was valid. It also means you can't buy anything because no one will sell to you. You can't buy anything because no one can buy from you. The only people you can trade with is people inside your land grid - the square surrounded by roads, and chances are they will all have subscriptions so they can't sell to you or buy from you and transport that good across any road.

You can't get electricity, because the electric company will be a subscriber. Their lines cross over roads and their vehicles drive on roads to service those lines. The water system won't sell to you either - the water pipes run under the roads and their service trucks use the roads to service those lines. Ditto for internet service.

In order to avoid all road use, you have to live the life of a hermit growing all your own food, collecting your own water, earning no money, engaging in no meaningful trade, and... essentially living the life of a mountain man.

If you lived such a lifestyle now, you would pay no income taxes.

So what's the difference?

[Nerotysia]

the default natural condition should be that a person owns what he creates or what someone else has agreed to give to him or sell/trade to him, with or without there being a state

There's that term, "should." Pray tell, without a state, how are you going to enforce this utopia where everyone owns what they create? How are you going to enforce a fair market such as the one you have described?

the state is a facilitator, but not a precondition

Modern markets are complex, monstrous, and wonderful beings, and they require a state to exist in order for them to function. Just think of currency, to give but one example. Currency is absolutely vital to modern markets, and could not exist without a state.

[Infected Mushroom]

How do you go from government ownership of the roads (assuming they were all built/bought by the government) to government ownership of absolutely everything? Last time I checked, most things in life are privately owned and the government actually owns very little property.

Here's the thing - the government owns ALL the roads, and they exercise ownship rights on the rivers and ownership rights over the sky (even if you think the sky is not a legitimate ownership right, and land rights extend upwards in the sky, then you would still have to cross over roads to get anywhere. These roads are owned by the government). The government has claimed exclusive ownership over these things. The government has even claimed ownership rights over the ocean out to 12 miles from shore.

I'm going with your insane notions that sovreignty is not a valid thing, but even under those notions, since the government owns an interlocking grid of owned land, owned rivers, and owned ocean they can effectively embargo you in your land.

They can make, as part of their subscription terms, that no one may sell goods or services transported over a road to anyone without a subscription, nor buy any goods or services produced domestically and then transport those by road or cross a road with them. You said this was valid. It also means you can't buy anything because no one will sell to you. You can't buy anything because no one can buy from you. The only people you can trade with is people inside your land grid - the square surrounded by roads, and chances are they will all have subscriptions so they can't sell to you or buy from you and transport that good across any road.

You can't get electricity, because the electric company will be a subscriber. Their lines cross over roads and their vehicles drive on roads to service those lines. The water system won't sell to you either - the water pipes run under the roads and their service trucks use the roads to service those lines. Ditto for internet service.

In order to avoid all road use, you have to live the life of a hermit growing all your own food, collecting your own water, earning no money, engaging in no meaningful trade, and... essentially living the life of a mountain man.

If you lived such a lifestyle now, you would pay no income taxes.

So what's the difference?

The difference is that a business can't charge you until you show up and agree to their terms. If you've somehow been accidentally using their property before then its up to them whether or not they want to bring a small claims court (ex in trespass). You can also stay where you are and opt out of the subscriptions (unless your house is owned by the business).

The government, assumes from the very beginning that you are a ''customer (it doesn't care what you have to say verbally to them).'' The way it is charging you is also not contingent on you being a ''customer,'' its based on where you are geographically. There is also no possibility of you staying exactly where you are while opting out of this subscription, your subscription is determined not by your use or non-use of the government property, but simply by where you stand geographically.

[Infected Mushroom]

If a business behaved as the government did... determined its ''customers'' based on where they live geographically (as opposed to based on verbal consent) and charged them a ''subscription'' which they can only escape by moving elsewhere... and then proceeded to send people to enforce the subscriptions...

the businesses would be rightfully charged with extortion and if they got any money from it, the transactions would be rendered void because they are unconscionable. The courts would not find a contract, it would also not find the business' actions to be lawful.

the fact that at some points in the past the customer may have unintentionally used some property that belonged to the business may give rise to some capability of seeking legal redress from the businesses... but it in no way gives the businesses the right to assume that these customers so-consented to become customers (with only one ''contractual'' means of exiting that status, leaving a certain territory which they, the business, do not entirely own)

[Galloism]

Here's the thing - the government owns ALL the roads, and they exercise ownship rights on the rivers and ownership rights over the sky (even if you think the sky is not a legitimate ownership right, and land rights extend upwards in the sky, then you would still have to cross over roads to get anywhere. These roads are owned by the government). The government has claimed exclusive ownership over these things. The government has even claimed ownership rights over the ocean out to 12 miles from shore.

I'm going with your insane notions that sovreignty is not a valid thing, but even under those notions, since the government owns an interlocking grid of owned land, owned rivers, and owned ocean they can effectively embargo you in your land.

They can make, as part of their subscription terms, that no one may sell goods or services transported over a road to anyone without a subscription, nor buy any goods or services produced domestically and then transport those by road or cross a road with them. You said this was valid. It also means you can't buy anything because no one will sell to you. You can't buy anything because no one can buy from you. The only people you can trade with is people inside your land grid - the square surrounded by roads, and chances are they will all have subscriptions so they can't sell to you or buy from you and transport that good across any road.

You can't get electricity, because the electric company will be a subscriber. Their lines cross over roads and their vehicles drive on roads to service those lines. The water system won't sell to you either - the water pipes run under the roads and their service trucks use the roads to service those lines. Ditto for internet service.

In order to avoid all road use, you have to live the life of a hermit growing all your own food, collecting your own water, earning no money, engaging in no meaningful trade, and... essentially living the life of a mountain man.

If you lived such a lifestyle now, you would pay no income taxes.

So what's the difference?

The difference is that a business can't charge you until you show up and agree to their terms. If you've somehow been accidentally using their property before then its up to them whether or not they want to bring a small claims court (ex in trespass).

And typically the court will award them damages as if you had been customer, and, if you were reckless, certain punitive damages.

You can also stay where you are and opt out of the subscriptions (unless your house is owned by the business).

And live like a self-sufficient hermit - whereupon even under the current system you would pay no income taxes.

The government, assumes from the very beginning that you are a ''customer (it doesn't care what you have to say verbally to them).'' The way it is charging you is also not contingent on you being a ''customer,'' its based on where you are geographically. There is also no possibility of you staying exactly where you are while opting out of this subscription, your subscription is determined not by your use or non-use of the government property, but simply by where you stand geographically.

But what's the factual difference? What would the actual real world difference be in results between embargoing people until they subscribe to the tax system vs just doing regular taxes outright?

[Infected Mushroom]

The difference is that a business can't charge you until you show up and agree to their terms. If you've somehow been accidentally using their property before then its up to them whether or not they want to bring a small claims court (ex in trespass).

And typically the court will award them damages as if you had been customer, and, if you were reckless, certain punitive damages.

You can also stay where you are and opt out of the subscriptions (unless your house is owned by the business).

And live like a self-sufficient hermit - whereupon even under the current system you would pay no income taxes.

The government, assumes from the very beginning that you are a ''customer (it doesn't care what you have to say verbally to them).'' The way it is charging you is also not contingent on you being a ''customer,'' its based on where you are geographically. There is also no possibility of you staying exactly where you are while opting out of this subscription, your subscription is determined not by your use or non-use of the government property, but simply by where you stand geographically.

But what's the factual difference? What would the actual real world difference be in results between embargoing people until they subscribe to the tax system vs just doing regular taxes outright?

the difference would be that at any one point people (as individuals on a case by case) can talk to a government official to renegotiate what they are paying and the government could offer to provide less (on a person by person basis), at any one point you could have people living in the same place (in a non-government housing) who subscribe or DON'T subscribe to the deal (just like how you can have some people who live in a neighbourhood who subscribe to cable TV while others living in the same place don't), the government could sue people for using their services (roads, universal healthcare, state-provided electricity etc) if the people did so without paying the subscriptions (right now it isn't a cause of action for the government to sue someone for say... walking into a park while they don't pay taxes; suggesting a non-analogy between the taxpayer-government relation and the business-customer/subscriber relation)

I could go on