Taxes are a form of Theft

[Galloism]

Let's make sure I understand this correctly. If a contract is not specifically negotiated, but goods/services are rendered with an expectation of payment and payment is not given, there's no obligation to pay for the goods/services provided?

I just want to make sure I'm understanding what your position is.

How does an unborn baby negotiate payment for it's birth in a hospital?

Shhh. Let IM answer the question.

[Vadia]

When you were born, you were in a government funded hospital.

You were driven home on government funded roads.

You went to a government funded school.

You come into this world owing the government money, you don't just opt out of that.

Exactly, its similar to the Kim davis issue: an elected official cannot just opt out of upholding a government law.

Hello, I am a police officer who is supposed to protect you from murders.

To bad you are Asian and I am racist.

Because of this, I will opt out of my duty as a cop to protect you.

This is why people can't opt out of the law or their jobs working for the law.

[Infected Mushroom]

you don't owe the money, they are a gift, flowing from a fiduciary obligation flowing from the state to the individual (the state, having power over the individual, has a duty to provide for and protect the individual to the extent that is reasonable/practical/possible)

in order for the money to be owed, you would have to sit down with the government, talk to them and negotiate a contract (without their being coercion) in which corresponding rights and obligations are set up forming an Offer and an Acceptance etc

There was never such a moment. You don't owe the government anything. There was never a contract. You never had that moment where you sat down facing the government and said to them, ''I agree to pay Nth percentage of my income every year how about you provide me in exchange with X... Y ... Z... etc'' and the government says ''Fine.''

This moment is a creation of fiction. There is no such meeting. The government merely imposed its terms from the get go. And stealing from the people is clearly a violation of a fiduciary obligation.

Let's make sure I understand this correctly. If a contract is not specifically negotiated, but goods/services are rendered with an expectation of payment and payment is not given, there's no obligation to pay for the goods/services provided?

I just want to make sure I'm understanding what your position is.

You can't owe the government any money by the mere virtue of going to work, because to owe money to the government you have to have bought something from the government under a valid contract of sale/service. For there to be such a contract, the parties need to have a moment where they meet face to face, discuss and set out the terms of the Offer and the Acceptance as equal parties and hammer out the details... then they need to agree and finalise the contract. That NEVER happened.

We can both agree that the government doesn't visit every single person when they become of working age to negotiate an individual contract with each and every person about what to sell to them. No, the government simply assumes that contractual obligations exist FROM THE GET GO and are triggered as soon as any income is earned. Stuff is ''owed'' to them in the most fictitious of sense. Its not owed. There were no obligations at first, the state chose to provide some services (ex the police etc). When the person started to work, the state then proceeds to treat the person as if they were born into a contract already. This is problematic and completely inconsistent.

What it is consistent with, is robbery.

[Ifreann]

You're only able to earn and retain that income because of the services and institutions provided by the government. You owe the government that money. And beyond that, taxation is a form of redistribution, which allows those who don't earn much of an income to still access basic necessities using a portion of your income.

Not really, it is possible to envision a society where redistribution is voluntary (based on free will and the charitable contributions of individuals and organisations) and the government finances a very limited but relatively functional range of public services by running its own for-profit businesses or working closely with the private sector; whatever the government can't afford to pick up, the market will fill the void with cost-effective services

under such a system, stealing from the people to finance public works would not be necessary and it would be far more ethical as a whole

And everyone would smoke weed, wear suits, and own dogs, because the government wouldn't be able to fund the unlimited police powers you dream of.

[Galloism]

Let's make sure I understand this correctly. If a contract is not specifically negotiated, but goods/services are rendered with an expectation of payment and payment is not given, there's no obligation to pay for the goods/services provided?

I just want to make sure I'm understanding what your position is.

You can't owe the government any money by the mere virtue of going to work, because to owe money to the government you have to have bought something from the government under a valid contract of sale. For there to be such a contract, the parties need to have a moment where they meet face to face, discuss and set out the terms of the Offer and the Acceptance as equal parties and hammer out the details... then they need to agree and finalise the contract. That NEVER happened.

Ok, so let's say you go into a building where they serve food, and you tell them you want some quesadillas, two martinis, and 11 margaritas. Then they present you with a bill.

Since you never specifically discussed the cost of all this food and alcohol, doing a dine and dash stagger is both ethical and moral. That's what we're saying here.

Correct?

[Calimera II]

Let's make sure I understand this correctly. If a contract is not specifically negotiated, but goods/services are rendered with an expectation of payment and payment is not given, there's no obligation to pay for the goods/services provided?

I just want to make sure I'm understanding what your position is.

You can't owe the government any money by the mere virtue of going to work, because to owe money to the government you have to have bought something from the government under a valid contract of sale/service. For there to be such a contract, the parties need to have a moment where they meet face to face, discuss and set out the terms of the Offer and the Acceptance as equal parties and hammer out the details... then they need to agree and finalise the contract. That NEVER happened.

We can both agree that the government doesn't visit every single person when they become of working age to negotiate an individual contract with each and every person about what to sell to them. No, the government simply assumes that contractual obligations exist FROM THE GET GO and are triggered as soon as any income is earned. Stuff is ''owed'' to them in the most fictitious of sense. Its not owed. There were no obligations at first, the state chose to provide some services (ex the police etc). When the person started to work, the state then proceeds to treat the person as if they were born into a contract already. This is problematic and completely inconsistent.

What it is consistent with, is robbery.

You studied law. You know there are states. You know that states exercise full sovereignty over a territory. Full sovereignty, the state is legally capable of taxing people, things, institutions and corporations. By working and living in a particular state you accept the rules of that state. If you don't want to pay taxes, go live in a state where you don't have to pay taxes.

[Geilinor]

Not really, it is possible to envision a society where redistribution is voluntary (based on free will and the charitable contributions of individuals and organisations) and the government finances a very limited but relatively functional range of public services by running its own for-profit businesses or working closely with the private sector; whatever the government can't afford to pick up, the market will fill the void with cost-effective services

under such a system, stealing from the people to finance public works would not be necessary and it would be far more ethical as a whole

And everyone would smoke weed, wear suits, and own dogs, because the government wouldn't be able to fund the unlimited police powers you dream of.

People would also fly first class.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Let's make sure I understand this correctly. If a contract is not specifically negotiated, but goods/services are rendered with an expectation of payment and payment is not given, there's no obligation to pay for the goods/services provided?

I just want to make sure I'm understanding what your position is.

You can't owe the government any money by the mere virtue of going to work, because to owe money to the government you have to have bought something from the government under a valid contract of sale/service. For there to be such a contract, the parties need to have a moment where they meet face to face, discuss and set out the terms of the Offer and the Acceptance as equal parties and hammer out the details... then they need to agree and finalise the contract. That NEVER happened.

We can both agree that the government doesn't visit every single person when they become of working age to negotiate an individual contract with each and every person about what to sell to them. No, the government simply assumes that contractual obligations exist FROM THE GET GO and are triggered as soon as any income is earned. Stuff is ''owed'' to them in the most fictitious of sense. Its not owed. There were no obligations at first, the state chose to provide some services (ex the police etc). When the person started to work, the state then proceeds to treat the person as if they were born into a contract already. This is problematic and completely inconsistent.

What it is consistent with, is robbery.

The usage of public works is the usage of government provided services which use tax money to pay for their maintenance and continued operation and improvement. The government has no obligation to meet with you and negotiate a contract.

[Ifreann]

And everyone would smoke weed, wear suits, and own dogs, because the government wouldn't be able to fund the unlimited police powers you dream of.

People would also fly first class.

Though, the planes might crash into each other in the absence of a well-funded aviation authority.

[Calimera II]

You're only able to earn and retain that income because of the services and institutions provided by the government. You owe the government that money. And beyond that, taxation is a form of redistribution, which allows those who don't earn much of an income to still access basic necessities using a portion of your income.

Not really, it is possible to envision a society where redistribution is voluntary (based on free will and the charitable contributions of individuals and organisations) and the government finances a very limited but relatively functional range of public services by running its own for-profit businesses or working closely with the private sector; whatever the government can't afford to pick up, the market will fill the void with cost-effective services

under such a system, stealing from the people to finance public works would not be necessary and it would be far more ethical as a whole

Like Evita once said: ''When the rich think about the poor they have poor ideas.'' Voluntary redistribution doesn't work, will never work and has never worked.

[United States of Natan]

Exactly, its similar to the Kim davis issue: an elected official cannot just opt out of upholding a government law.

Hello, I am a police officer who is supposed to protect you from murders.

To bad you are Asian and I am racist.

Because of this, I will opt out of my duty as a cop to protect you.

This is why people can't opt out of the law or their jobs working for the law.

Finally, someone who understands how rule of law, government, and society is SUPPOSED to work!

Mushroom, in this world, in this country, we live in a society, where everyone has certain responsibilities. A person who shirks those responsibilities is not fit to be in society. Part of those responsibilities is doing your job, upholding the law if you are a public official or government employee, and paying your taxes to fund the government. You cannot just ignore those responsibilities. Everyone has to pay their taxes. We are all treated equally. If you don't want to pay your taxes, go buy a boat, and live in the ocean, where you'll only have to worry about yourself.

[Infected Mushroom]

You can't owe the government any money by the mere virtue of going to work, because to owe money to the government you have to have bought something from the government under a valid contract of sale/service. For there to be such a contract, the parties need to have a moment where they meet face to face, discuss and set out the terms of the Offer and the Acceptance as equal parties and hammer out the details... then they need to agree and finalise the contract. That NEVER happened.

We can both agree that the government doesn't visit every single person when they become of working age to negotiate an individual contract with each and every person about what to sell to them. No, the government simply assumes that contractual obligations exist FROM THE GET GO and are triggered as soon as any income is earned. Stuff is ''owed'' to them in the most fictitious of sense. Its not owed. There were no obligations at first, the state chose to provide some services (ex the police etc). When the person started to work, the state then proceeds to treat the person as if they were born into a contract already. This is problematic and completely inconsistent.

What it is consistent with, is robbery.

The usage of public works is the usage of government provided services which use tax money to pay for their maintenance and continued operation and improvement. The government has no obligation to meet with you and negotiate a contract.

it does if it wants to rightfully claim that I owe them any money

otherwise, any services provided to me should be treated by the law as a gift

[Infected Mushroom]

Not really, it is possible to envision a society where redistribution is voluntary (based on free will and the charitable contributions of individuals and organisations) and the government finances a very limited but relatively functional range of public services by running its own for-profit businesses or working closely with the private sector; whatever the government can't afford to pick up, the market will fill the void with cost-effective services

under such a system, stealing from the people to finance public works would not be necessary and it would be far more ethical as a whole

Like Evita once said: ''When the rich think about the poor they have poor ideas.'' Voluntary redistribution doesn't work, will never work and has never worked.

and yet there are very effective churches that run almost entirely on donations

[Calimera II]

Like Evita once said: ''When the rich think about the poor they have poor ideas.'' Voluntary redistribution doesn't work, will never work and has never worked.

and yet there are very effective churches that run almost entirely on donations

A country cannot run on donations.

[The Liberated Territories]

Like Evita once said: ''When the rich think about the poor they have poor ideas.'' Voluntary redistribution doesn't work, will never work and has never worked.

and yet there are very effective churches that run almost entirely on donations

And the Vatican, which socialists like to rail against for being mostly voluntarily funded through donations and the like, despite in many cases being on par with the power of a state. Or perhaps the irrational hatred of tips, which cause American waitresses to be paid far more than many European waitresses.

The irrationality hurts.

[Infected Mushroom]

and yet there are very effective churches that run almost entirely on donations

A country cannot run on donations.

which is why state enterprises and cooperation with the private sector will form the other pillars for a reliable income stream for the government

[No Serfdom]

Exactly, its similar to the Kim davis issue: an elected official cannot just opt out of upholding a government law.

Hello, I am a police officer who is supposed to protect you from murders.

To bad you are Asian and I am racist.

Because of this, I will opt out of my duty as a cop to protect you.

This is why people can't opt out of the law or their jobs working for the law.

Police officers are not legally obligated to provide protection.

[Calimera II]

A country cannot run on donations.

which is why state enterprises and cooperation with the private sector will form the other pillars for a reliable income stream for the government

So you want a totally corruptible government, which depends on corporations and the oligarchy?

Yea... I am sure the poor and the middle class will profit.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

The usage of public works is the usage of government provided services which use tax money to pay for their maintenance and continued operation and improvement. The government has no obligation to meet with you and negotiate a contract.

it does if it wants to rightfully claim that I owe them any money

otherwise, any services provided to me should be treated by the law as a gift

No it doesn't.

That is not how that works, they are not gifts, they are services provided to you in return for taxes which pay for those services. Without taxes those services would not exist or would be of very poor quality. And government workers and employees don't work for free.

[Webus]

I hate to break it to you, but the Government knows better than you do.

not when they are run by corporate puppets elected by the largely incompetent masses

Even if corruption and Incompetency are problems, that doesn't mean we should get rid of taxes. Almost every government on the planet is better than none.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Like Evita once said: ''When the rich think about the poor they have poor ideas.'' Voluntary redistribution doesn't work, will never work and has never worked.

Churches are small compared to the government. The government is a huge machine that needs money to operate or it would cease to function or function properly.
and yet there are very effective churches that run almost entirely on donations

[The Serbian Empire]

A country cannot run on donations.

which is why state enterprises and cooperation with the private sector will form the other pillars for a reliable income stream for the government

They seem to evade taxation to what they want to be at.

[Dyakovo]

Not really, it is possible to envision a society where redistribution is voluntary (based on free will and the charitable contributions of individuals and organisations) and the government finances a very limited but relatively functional range of public services by running its own for-profit businesses or working closely with the private sector; whatever the government can't afford to pick up, the market will fill the void with cost-effective services

under such a system, stealing from the people to finance public works would not be necessary and it would be far more ethical as a whole

And everyone would smoke weed, wear suits, and own dogs, because the government wouldn't be able to fund the unlimited police powers you dream of.

Or everyone would have weed smoking, suit-wearing dogs that fly first class...

[Infected Mushroom]

it does if it wants to rightfully claim that I owe them any money

otherwise, any services provided to me should be treated by the law as a gift

No it doesn't.

That is not how that works, they are not gifts, they are services provided to you in return for taxes which pay for those services. Without taxes those services would not exist or would be of very poor quality. And government workers and employees don't work for free.

they are provided because the state has a responsibility to provide for the people, not in a contract of sale/service (for that type of thing to be drawn up properly, the government would have to meet and negotiate the terms of the Offer and Acceptance with each and every one of its citizens when they come of age, the government doesn't do that... it has no basis for a legitimate claim on money owed)

In the absence of a contract, benefits provided to other people should be considered gifts (or otherwise, to be held in trust by the individuals with a government right to reclaim if the government wanted to assert this right, but that would not endowe it with any more right to payment)

[Dyakovo]

You can't owe the government any money by the mere virtue of going to work, because to owe money to the government you have to have bought something from the government under a valid contract of sale/service. For there to be such a contract, the parties need to have a moment where they meet face to face, discuss and set out the terms of the Offer and the Acceptance as equal parties and hammer out the details... then they need to agree and finalise the contract. That NEVER happened.

We can both agree that the government doesn't visit every single person when they become of working age to negotiate an individual contract with each and every person about what to sell to them. No, the government simply assumes that contractual obligations exist FROM THE GET GO and are triggered as soon as any income is earned. Stuff is ''owed'' to them in the most fictitious of sense. Its not owed. There were no obligations at first, the state chose to provide some services (ex the police etc). When the person started to work, the state then proceeds to treat the person as if they were born into a contract already. This is problematic and completely inconsistent.

What it is consistent with, is robbery.

You studied law. You know there are states. You know that states exercise full sovereignty over a territory. Full sovereignty, the state is legally capable of taxing people, things, institutions and corporations. By working and living in a particular state you accept the rules of that state. If you don't want to pay taxes, go live in a state where you don't have to pay taxes.

Unreasonable assumption.