NATION

PASSWORD

Taxes are a form of Theft

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Communes of Europe
Attaché
 
Posts: 83
Founded: Aug 19, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Communes of Europe » Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:44 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Amusing complaint from someone who wants the state to have more power.


there's responsibly using the power of the state, and there's irresponsibly using it

there's using that power with honour and with benevolence, and there's abusing it

stealing from the populace is not good

I'm going to guess that if our benevolent Lannister overlord demands a yearly tribute from the smallfolk living near Casterly Rock, it's perfectly okay, right?

User avatar
Wolfmanne2
Senator
 
Posts: 3762
Founded: Sep 02, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Wolfmanne2 » Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:45 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Wolfmanne2 wrote:Laws are widely accepted as a greater good or a necessary evil at worst. Follow the law, you get your liberties as a citizen. If not, the justice system brings justice. It is the collective interest of individuals to ensure people aren't able to do whatever the fuck they please.


just because something is the law, doesn't mean its right

Sure, ok. Go stop paying your taxes and rot in prison. The taxpayer will happily fund your stay. It would be cheaper to just shoot you but you know... laws.
ESFP
United in Labour! Jezbollah and Saint Tony together!


Mad hatters in jeans wrote:Yeah precipitating on everyone doesn't go down well usually. You seem patient enough to chat to us, i'm willing to count that as nice.

User avatar
Occupied Deutschland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18796
Founded: Oct 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Occupied Deutschland » Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:45 am

Communes of Europe wrote:No OP, Atlas Shrugged is a terrible book.

In an amusing subversion, even Ayn Rand was actually Ayn-OK (see what I did there?) with taxation and despised the 'right-wing hippies' who opposed such things used to fund the courtly and protection purposes of government.
I'm General Patton.
Even those who are gone are with us as we go on.

Been busy lately--not around much.

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 159028
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Ifreann » Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:45 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Amusing complaint from someone who wants the state to have more power.


there's responsibly using the power of the state, and there's irresponsibly using it

there's using that power with honour and with benevolence, and there's abusing it

Which doesn't really change that you want there to be a vast power imbalance between individuals and the state. That you want the group with the most guns to be making the decisions about what people can and cannot do, about where they are free and where they have obligations.

stealing from the populace is not good

Unless you're stealing their drugs, suits, and dogs.

User avatar
The Grim Reaper
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10526
Founded: Oct 08, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The Grim Reaper » Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:46 am

Iwassoclose wrote:What problem? That we pay taxes to have public schools, have an organized system to regulate products/services with most jobs to comply with safety standards to protect the population, to maintain and build our public infrastructure that we use on a daily basis etc.

Whats the alternative to paying taxes? Privatize? No, thanks.


The statement in the OP is that taxes are inherently coercive, not voluntary. In other words, if I pay taxes, it is not because I wish to support the legitimacy of the state, but because I fear the state.

The reason this is an important distinction is because it problematizes social contract theory, which is a fundamental hurdle between anarchist and statist theory. Anarchists believe that the means do not justify the ends, when it comes to taxation. This is a philosophy that in particular underpins pacifist-anarchist theory, whereby violence cannot be justified by overthrowing violent institutions - violence has to be the end to justify violence, wherein violence would be legitimized if you were trying to disarm someone attacking someone else, for example.

Anarchists believe that taxes cannot be voluntary. A person does not have the capacity to go somewhere that does not have taxes, because freedom of movement is never guaranteed. Furthermore, state institutions hold authority over /all/ of the Earth, with the exception of Antartica. Bir Tawil is not unclaimed. it is simply not claimed, which is a meaningful distinction because anyone setting up a state there will be infringing upon someone's sovereignty - you just don't know if it's Egypt's or Sudan's. Regardless of whether or not state institutions are a superior system of working does not change the fact that people, in theory, should have the choice to subject themselves to sub-optimal systems of governance. They do not have the chocie to subject themselves to institutions outside current sovereign states, as recognized by the United Nations, as far as I know.

Statists believe that the ends can justify the means - again, on a spectrum. There /can/ be a 'state of exception' - an authority figure that designs exceptions to the assumed rules of our world, when so justified. Taxation exists in that state of exception because it coerces people into utilizing what states claim is a superior system of distributing resources.

Having shown that the statement 'taxes are a form of theft' is a /meaningful statement/ which can be either proved or disproved based on a /subjective/ philosophical framework, the implications of that statement /now/ become important. BUT IT ISN'T THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.

You can preface the point all you want - by arguing that even though some people may interpret it as coercive, like theft, it is NOT theft because it has a justified ends. The problem is that the authorities who justify the ends - the circumstances under which taxes can be collected - are political representatives. The fact that you can differentiate taxes from theft is because of a /subjective/ framework of understanding the world, not an objective one.

I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm saying your rejection of the statement 'taxes are a form of theft' is based on your understanding of the state of exception, created by sovereign states, is based on the fact that states implement taxes in a way that they assume is generally optimal. By rejecting the statement, you're not proving it's false, just defending the fact that it has to be false for your view of the world to remain consistent. The statement is not one that is provable, because the definition of theft is being problematized - the statement becomes true or false depending on how you define theft. People who believe the statement is false believe it because the state of exception has a certain definition of the world theft that specifically excludes taxes. That's what the state of exception does, it acts as an extension of social legitimacy to produce the ability for the state to exercise means of acting 'optimally'.

Arguing in favour of the statement 'taxes are a form of theft' means that you argue the state does not act 'optimally', thereby delegitimizing the state of exception.
If I can't play bass, I don't want to be part of your revolution.
Melbourne, Australia

A & Ω

Is "not a blood diamond" a high enough bar for a wedding ring? Artificial gemstones are better-looking, more ethical, and made out of PURE SCIENCE™.

User avatar
Infected Mushroom
Post Czar
 
Posts: 38837
Founded: Apr 15, 2014
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Infected Mushroom » Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:50 am

Wolfmanne2 wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
just because something is the law, doesn't mean its right

Sure, ok. Go stop paying your taxes and rot in prison. The taxpayer will happily fund your stay. It would be cheaper to just shoot you but you know... laws.


what does this have to do with the topic?

User avatar
Wolfmanne2
Senator
 
Posts: 3762
Founded: Sep 02, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Wolfmanne2 » Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:52 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Wolfmanne2 wrote:Sure, ok. Go stop paying your taxes and rot in prison. The taxpayer will happily fund your stay. It would be cheaper to just shoot you but you know... laws.


what does this have to do with the topic?

It is relevant. If taxes are a form of theft, why do you pay them? Why not prevent the government from stealing your money? Fly abroad to some tax haven and protect yourself from the long arm of the feds.
ESFP
United in Labour! Jezbollah and Saint Tony together!


Mad hatters in jeans wrote:Yeah precipitating on everyone doesn't go down well usually. You seem patient enough to chat to us, i'm willing to count that as nice.

User avatar
Infected Mushroom
Post Czar
 
Posts: 38837
Founded: Apr 15, 2014
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Infected Mushroom » Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:58 am

Wolfmanne2 wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
what does this have to do with the topic?

It is relevant. If taxes are a form of theft, why do you pay them? Why not prevent the government from stealing your money? Fly abroad to some tax haven and protect yourself from the long arm of the feds.


because the state has overwhelming firepower

User avatar
Iwassoclose
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1315
Founded: Dec 08, 2014
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Iwassoclose » Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:59 am

The Grim Reaper wrote:
Iwassoclose wrote:What problem? That we pay taxes to have public schools, have an organized system to regulate products/services with most jobs to comply with safety standards to protect the population, to maintain and build our public infrastructure that we use on a daily basis etc.

Whats the alternative to paying taxes? Privatize? No, thanks.


The statement in the OP is that taxes are inherently coercive, not voluntary. In other words, if I pay taxes, it is not because I wish to support the legitimacy of the state, but because I fear the state.

The reason this is an important distinction is because it problematizes social contract theory, which is a fundamental hurdle between anarchist and statist theory. Anarchists believe that the means do not justify the ends, when it comes to taxation. This is a philosophy that in particular underpins pacifist-anarchist theory, whereby violence cannot be justified by overthrowing violent institutions - violence has to be the end to justify violence, wherein violence would be legitimized if you were trying to disarm someone attacking someone else, for example.

Anarchists believe that taxes cannot be voluntary. A person does not have the capacity to go somewhere that does not have taxes, because freedom of movement is never guaranteed. Furthermore, state institutions hold authority over /all/ of the Earth, with the exception of Antartica. Bir Tawil is not unclaimed. it is simply not claimed, which is a meaningful distinction because anyone setting up a state there will be infringing upon someone's sovereignty - you just don't know if it's Egypt's or Sudan's. Regardless of whether or not state institutions are a superior system of working does not change the fact that people, in theory, should have the choice to subject themselves to sub-optimal systems of governance. They do not have the chocie to subject themselves to institutions outside current sovereign states, as recognized by the United Nations, as far as I know.

Statists believe that the ends can justify the means - again, on a spectrum. There /can/ be a 'state of exception' - an authority figure that designs exceptions to the assumed rules of our world, when so justified. Taxation exists in that state of exception because it coerces people into utilizing what states claim is a superior system of distributing resources.

Having shown that the statement 'taxes are a form of theft' is a /meaningful statement/ which can be either proved or disproved based on a /subjective/ philosophical framework, the implications of that statement /now/ become important. BUT IT ISN'T THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.

You can preface the point all you want - by arguing that even though some people may interpret it as coercive, like theft, it is NOT theft because it has a justified ends. The problem is that the authorities who justify the ends - the circumstances under which taxes can be collected - are political representatives. The fact that you can differentiate taxes from theft is because of a /subjective/ framework of understanding the world, not an objective one.

I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm saying your rejection of the statement 'taxes are a form of theft' is based on your understanding of the state of exception, created by sovereign states, is based on the fact that states implement taxes in a way that they assume is generally optimal. By rejecting the statement, you're not proving it's false, just defending the fact that it has to be false for your view of the world to remain consistent. The statement is not one that is provable, because the definition of theft is being problematized - the statement becomes true or false depending on how you define theft. People who believe the statement is false believe it because the state of exception has a certain definition of the world theft that specifically excludes taxes. That's what the state of exception does, it acts as an extension of social legitimacy to produce the ability for the state to exercise means of acting 'optimally'.

Arguing in favour of the statement 'taxes are a form of theft' means that you argue the state does not act 'optimally', thereby delegitimizing the state of exception.


I am not claiming my stance is the objective truth here. You could have gotten that across with a lot fewer words.

User avatar
Communes of Europe
Attaché
 
Posts: 83
Founded: Aug 19, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Communes of Europe » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:00 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Wolfmanne2 wrote:It is relevant. If taxes are a form of theft, why do you pay them? Why not prevent the government from stealing your money? Fly abroad to some tax haven and protect yourself from the long arm of the feds.


because the state has overwhelming firepower

They don't use heavy artillery to force people to pay their taxes.

Good idea though! I'll have to see if we can put that into practice.

User avatar
Alvecia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19942
Founded: Aug 17, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Alvecia » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:02 am

BK117B2 wrote:
Alvecia wrote:I noted your point made during and after I had posted and responded accordingly. I will repeat here.
I looked it up myself and it does indeed state, or rather does not state, that the act has to be criminal. I take fault with the logic however. Following logically, if a GO like the DEA were to seize money, drugs, guns and property from a drug cartel under the threat of imprisonment or during a raid at the point of a gun, that would be extortion. So while it is not implicitly stated in the definition I think the term can only be applied to the party that is in the wrong, be it morally or legally.

I cannot think of any particular example at the moment, but the lack of a real world analogy does not discredit the supposition entirely.


By all means, let us use the version you would prefer: even then, as the party in the wrong, involuntary taxation would be extortion.


Well then we have to ask ourselves, if the method, in this case "extortion" is done by those in the legal and moral right against those in the legal and moral wrong to reach a legally and morally favourable outcome, is it not a force for good? In this case I would say yes.
Separately we must ask, if it is not good, yet it is still legal and moral, should it not be tolerated? Does the greater good outweigh the lesser evil. In this case I would say yes. The greatest Good more the most people.

BK117B2 wrote:
Alvecia wrote:I will concede the point, if only because it it devolving into semantics. But I would open up the point to involve a third option. Instead of either paying taxes or being imprisoned, why not pay your "dues" and remove yourself to somewhere that you cannot be taxed. Or a fourth, escape to somewhere you cannot be taxed or held accountable for dues not paid.


The same would apply to other cases of extortion. A business owner being able to pack up shop and leave doesn't alter the nature of extortion.


Perhaps, but now you can voluntarily choose between options 1, 3 and 4. The point here is that the closer the example gets to what might reasonable be assumed to be close to reality, the more and more the choice becomes a voluntary one.

BK117B2 wrote:
Alvecia wrote:Is paying for utilities not just tax in a different mask. Or vice versa, are taxes not just paying for utilities but with a fancy name. The tone of your response indicates you are happy to pay for water, electric, etc.


Paying for utilities is obviously entirely different based on the actual issue at hand: consent. You choose to exchange for utilities.

Yes, I'm fine paying for my utilities. I'm also just fine with paying my taxes. That's quite different from the issue at hand: INVOLUNTARY taxation.


I think we will need to be more specific to argue this point further. Is there one particular tax or group of taxes that you consider to be involuntary?

BK117B2 wrote:'My' logic is just to go by the meaning of the word. Is the DEA in your example using force or threat of force to get those things?

Obviously there are forms of asset seizure that require no force or threat of force.....so how could it apply to those things?


I would say that in my example they are yes. Which by the meaning of the word means the DEA is extorting drug cartels by seizing property under threat of imprisonment or death (not a literal death threat, see my previous post). Is this a bad thing? Well that links quite nicely into my point above. As to the forms of asset seizure that do not require force? They only do not require force if the person whose assets are being seized refuses to consent to their removal. Which again, links into my point above.
British
Atheist
IT Support
That there is no exception to the rule "There is an exception to every rule" is the exception that proves the rule.
---
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll stop asking you to catch his fish.
That's not happening
That shouldn't be happening
Why is that happening?
That's why it's happening?
How has this ever worked?

User avatar
The Ridings of Yorkshire
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 161
Founded: Jul 22, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby The Ridings of Yorkshire » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:02 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Wolfmanne2 wrote:It is relevant. If taxes are a form of theft, why do you pay them? Why not prevent the government from stealing your money? Fly abroad to some tax haven and protect yourself from the long arm of the feds.


because the state has overwhelming firepower

It's "overwhelming firepower" that won't blow you up if you just move to a tax haven.
Last edited by The Ridings of Yorkshire on Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Communes of Europe
Attaché
 
Posts: 83
Founded: Aug 19, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Communes of Europe » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:06 am

The Ridings of Yorkshire wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
because the state has overwhelming firepower

It's "overwhelming firepower" that won't blow you up if you just move to a tax haven.

Note to self: bomb all known tax havens after becoming supreme ruler for life.

User avatar
Alvecia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19942
Founded: Aug 17, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Alvecia » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:14 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Wolfmanne2 wrote:It is relevant. If taxes are a form of theft, why do you pay them? Why not prevent the government from stealing your money? Fly abroad to some tax haven and protect yourself from the long arm of the feds.


because the state has overwhelming firepower


I hadn't heard of anyone being killed for refusing to pay taxes. Did this happen somewhere and I wasn't aware?
British
Atheist
IT Support
That there is no exception to the rule "There is an exception to every rule" is the exception that proves the rule.
---
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll stop asking you to catch his fish.
That's not happening
That shouldn't be happening
Why is that happening?
That's why it's happening?
How has this ever worked?

User avatar
Infected Mushroom
Post Czar
 
Posts: 38837
Founded: Apr 15, 2014
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Infected Mushroom » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:19 am

Communes of Europe wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
because the state has overwhelming firepower

They don't use heavy artillery to force people to pay their taxes.

Good idea though! I'll have to see if we can put that into practice.


I never said they did

User avatar
Infected Mushroom
Post Czar
 
Posts: 38837
Founded: Apr 15, 2014
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Infected Mushroom » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:19 am

The Ridings of Yorkshire wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
because the state has overwhelming firepower

It's "overwhelming firepower" that won't blow you up if you just move to a tax haven.


you're assuming its easy to find work in a tax haven as a foreigner, or that I have the means and the connections to settle there

User avatar
Infected Mushroom
Post Czar
 
Posts: 38837
Founded: Apr 15, 2014
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Infected Mushroom » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:20 am

Alvecia wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
because the state has overwhelming firepower


I hadn't heard of anyone being killed for refusing to pay taxes. Did this happen somewhere and I wasn't aware?


ever heard of the American Revolution?

User avatar
Tekeristan
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5344
Founded: Mar 08, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Tekeristan » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:22 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Alvecia wrote:
I hadn't heard of anyone being killed for refusing to pay taxes. Did this happen somewhere and I wasn't aware?


ever heard of the American Revolution?


That wasn't just over taxes, it was over the formation of a new country. Which is a new issue in itself.

User avatar
Devon Teyson
Envoy
 
Posts: 244
Founded: May 15, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Devon Teyson » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:24 am

Define theft, please. Then we can see if taxes meet the definition.
Who doesn't like a little rainbow? Not The Perverted Isles!

This nation may have been founded today eleven many days ago, but the player behind it has a long history of being on NationStates.
Californian
The Sacramento Bee wrote:“All workers should be protected, but that’s why we elect an attorney general and pay Cal/OSHA. Other proponents don’t write state jobs for themselves into their measures. We share Weinstein’s frustrations, but Proposition 60 is a legal overreach and too hardcore.”
good job sacto, keep it up

User avatar
Infected Mushroom
Post Czar
 
Posts: 38837
Founded: Apr 15, 2014
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Infected Mushroom » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:25 am

Tekeristan wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
ever heard of the American Revolution?


That wasn't just over taxes, it was over the formation of a new country. Which is a new issue in itself.


no it was largely about taxes; forming a new nation was kind of improv move along the way
Last edited by Infected Mushroom on Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Occupied Deutschland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18796
Founded: Oct 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Occupied Deutschland » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:26 am

Alvecia wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
because the state has overwhelming firepower

I hadn't heard of anyone being killed for refusing to pay taxes. Did this happen somewhere and I wasn't aware?

Revolutionaries in the US, 'Salt Marchers' in India, Jews in Rome, French revolutionaries (a number of times, perhaps most famously in the 1790s and 1840s), and all manner of other times.
For more information, I refer you to the wiki on the subject.
I'm General Patton.
Even those who are gone are with us as we go on.

Been busy lately--not around much.

User avatar
Communes of Europe
Attaché
 
Posts: 83
Founded: Aug 19, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Communes of Europe » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:33 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Tekeristan wrote:
That wasn't just over taxes, it was over the formation of a new country. Which is a new issue in itself.


no it was largely about taxes; forming a new nation was kind of improv move along the way

No, it was "no taxation without representation" with emphasis on the representation part. So "give us representation", not "don't make us pay taxes".

User avatar
Infected Mushroom
Post Czar
 
Posts: 38837
Founded: Apr 15, 2014
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Infected Mushroom » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:36 am

Communes of Europe wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
no it was largely about taxes; forming a new nation was kind of improv move along the way

No, it was "no taxation without representation" with emphasis on the representation part. So "give us representation", not "don't make us pay taxes".


but it was still a war that was fought to avoid paying certain types of taxes

tell me, during the war, did the American troops continue to pay taxes to the British? Did the merchants who openly backed the revolution? Were many of them killed (some of them by artillery)? Yes.

You have here, both an example of people being killed for refusing to pay taxes (though not all taxes) AND some of those people being killed by the highest forms of state firepower available at the time period.

User avatar
Communes of Europe
Attaché
 
Posts: 83
Founded: Aug 19, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Communes of Europe » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:41 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Communes of Europe wrote:No, it was "no taxation without representation" with emphasis on the representation part. So "give us representation", not "don't make us pay taxes".


but it was still a war that was fought to avoid paying certain types of taxes

tell me, during the war, did the American troops continue to pay taxes to the British? Did the merchants who openly backed the revolution? Were many of them killed (some of them by artillery)? Yes.

You have here, both an example of people being killed for refusing to pay taxes (though not all taxes) AND some of those people being killed by the highest forms of state firepower available at the time period.

No, they were killed for taking up arms against their British overlords. That they didn't pay their taxes was not the main reason for them being killed.

User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 69785
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Genivaria » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:43 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Tekeristan wrote:
That wasn't just over taxes, it was over the formation of a new country. Which is a new issue in itself.


no it was largely about taxes; forming a new nation was kind of improv move along the way

You clearly slept through history class.
Anarcho-Communist, Democratic Confederalist
"The Earth isn't dying, it's being killed. And those killing it have names and addresses." -Utah Phillips

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alris, Attempted Socialism, Balican, Chocolatistan, Dumb Ideologies, Elejamie, Equai, Fartricia, Floofybit, Gorvonia, GuessTheAltAccount, Kenowa, Ostroeuropa, Pizza Friday Forever91, Washington Resistance Army

Advertisement

Remove ads