Taxes are a form of Theft

[Dyakovo]

Wrong.

Yes, you are.

Nope.

To expand upon this...
Are you aware that the nation in which you live levies taxes? Yes, of course you do.
Do you continue to live in said nation, thus taking advantage of all the benefits of doing so (which are paid for through taxation)?
If the answer to this is also yes, then congratulations, you've consented to taxation.

[The Burke Islands]

Maybe someone said this before but it's basically rent.

[Redsection]

Taxes are not theft,they Benefit the state,and the state is for the good of the people.

But what if it isn't? What if the state commits treason?

The state would never do such a thing,whatever the state does is good for the people.

[BK117B2]

Yes, you are.

Nope.

To expand upon this...
Are you aware that the nation in which you live levies taxes? Yes, of course you do.
Do you continue to live in said nation, thus taking advantage of all the benefits of doing so (which are paid for through taxation)?
If the answer to this is also yes, then congratulations, you've consented to taxation.

And I pointed out the fact that refusing to leave is NOT consent.

[Dyakovo]

Nope.

To expand upon this...
Are you aware that the nation in which you live levies taxes? Yes, of course you do.
Do you continue to live in said nation, thus taking advantage of all the benefits of doing so (which are paid for through taxation)?
If the answer to this is also yes, then congratulations, you've consented to taxation.

And I pointed out the fact that refusing to leave is NOT consent.

Incorrectly.

[BK117B2]

But what if it isn't? What if the state commits treason?

The state would never do such a thing,whatever the state does is good for the people.

So you view genocide, waging wars of conquest, slavery, oppression, etc as "good for the people"

[BK117B2]

And I pointed out the fact that refusing to leave is NOT consent.

Incorrectly.

That is obviously false. There is something about the concept of consent that you are just not getting

[Redsection]

The state would never do such a thing,whatever the state does is good for the people.

So you view genocide, waging wars of conquest, slavery, oppression, etc as "good for the people"

Here comes the rape train to attack fascism.

[The Burke Islands]

You know without taxes how is the state supposed to build the roads you use everyday, pump in the water that you drink everyday, and create the electricity you use everyday?

(Someone might have said this earlier but I just wanted to join in the thread.)

[Dyakovo]

Incorrectly.

That is obviously false. There is something about the concept of consent that you are just not getting

Except it isn't.
You make use of something.
You find out using it costs X.
You keep using it.
In doing so, you have consented to paying X.

[BK117B2]

That is obviously false. There is something about the concept of consent that you are just not getting

Except it isn't.
You make use of something.
You find out using it costs X.
You keep using it.
In doing so, you have consented to paying X.

It is, in fact, false.

You saying that someone else consents is NOT them consenting. You don't get to consent for other people.

[Galloism]

Nope.

To expand upon this...
Are you aware that the nation in which you live levies taxes? Yes, of course you do.
Do you continue to live in said nation, thus taking advantage of all the benefits of doing so (which are paid for through taxation)?
If the answer to this is also yes, then congratulations, you've consented to taxation.

And I pointed out the fact that refusing to leave is NOT consent.

You, me, Dyakovo, and 97 other people each own 1% of a corporation. Among other assets, the corporation owns the house you live in. It also owns the house Dyakovo lives in and the one I live in.

The corporation declares, by vote of the shareholders, that it will charge rent on all properties it owns. You dissent from this vote, but are outvoted 80-20 by the board.

You continue to live to the property. Can the corporation sue you for rent?

[BK117B2]

So you view genocide, waging wars of conquest, slavery, oppression, etc as "good for the people"

Here comes the rape train to attack fascism.

So rather than actually respond, you prefer making worthless, off-topic comments about rape and fascism

[BK117B2]

And I pointed out the fact that refusing to leave is NOT consent.

You, me, Dyakovo, and 97 other people each own 1% of a corporation. Among other assets, the corporation owns the house you live in. It also owns the house Dyakovo lives in and the one I live in.

The corporation declares, by vote of the shareholders, that it will charge rent on all properties it owns. You dissent from this vote, but are outvoted 80-20 by the board.

You continue to live to the property. Can the corporation sue you for rent?

To answer the question: that all depends on the laws of where you live.

To point out the obvious: your hypothetical is not actually analogous to the issue at hand.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

You, me, Dyakovo, and 97 other people each own 1% of a corporation. Among other assets, the corporation owns the house you live in. It also owns the house Dyakovo lives in and the one I live in.

The corporation declares, by vote of the shareholders, that it will charge rent on all properties it owns. You dissent from this vote, but are outvoted 80-20 by the board.

You continue to live to the property. Can the corporation sue you for rent?

To answer the question: that all depends on the laws of where you live.

To point out the obvious: your hypothetical is not actually analogous to the issue at hand.

I do not understand how this is anything but a perfectly apt analogy. Could you, you know, EXPLAIN that the slightest bit rather than merely assert it? If it was self-evident, the analogy would not have been made.

[Galloism]

You, me, Dyakovo, and 97 other people each own 1% of a corporation. Among other assets, the corporation owns the house you live in. It also owns the house Dyakovo lives in and the one I live in.

The corporation declares, by vote of the shareholders, that it will charge rent on all properties it owns. You dissent from this vote, but are outvoted 80-20 by the board.

You continue to live to the property. Can the corporation sue you for rent?

To answer the question: that all depends on the laws of where you live.

To point out the obvious: your hypothetical is not actually analogous to the issue at hand.

Then let me rephrase. SHOULD the corporation be able to extract rent if you refuse to leave the property the corporation controls?

[Infected Mushroom]

That is utterly false. You choosing to believe that someone is implying consent does NOT, in fact, mean that they are consenting.

Wrong.

BK is correct.

I would also like to add, that most people are BORN in a country (as opposed to entering one as an adult) and that from that very moment of birth as a baby (who cannot possibly consent) they are bound by the laws. Laws don't suddenly start operating only if someone enters a country (as I have said countless times but no one understands this subtle point).

[BK117B2]

To answer the question: that all depends on the laws of where you live.

To point out the obvious: your hypothetical is not actually analogous to the issue at hand.

Then let me rephrase. SHOULD the corporation be able to extract rent if you refuse to leave the property the corporation controls?

It should be able to do whatever you agreed for it to do.

[Redsection]

Here comes the rape train to attack fascism.

So rather than actually respond, you prefer making worthless, off-topic comments about rape and fascism

you went off topic by saying "So you view genocide, waging wars of conquest, slavery, oppression, etc as "good for the people".What does that even have to do with what i said.

[BK117B2]

So rather than actually respond, you prefer making worthless, off-topic comments about rape and fascism

you went off topic by saying "So you view genocide, waging wars of conquest, slavery, oppression, etc as "good for the people".What does that even have to do with what i said.

I'm just pointing out what your claim means. I directly addressed your post. You didn't do the same.

[Redsection]

you went off topic by saying "So you view genocide, waging wars of conquest, slavery, oppression, etc as "good for the people".What does that even have to do with what i said.

I'm just pointing out what your claim means. I directly addressed your post. You didn't do the same.

How does genocide and slavery equal taxes are for the state and the state is good for the people?

[BK117B2]

I'm just pointing out what your claim means. I directly addressed your post. You didn't do the same.

How does genocide and slavery equal taxes are for the state and the state is good for the people?

You made a nonsensical claim that states would never do such bad things....that they do what is good for the people. I illustrated your mistake

[Stormwrath]

Ummm, no.

As a citizen it is your duty to pay taxes to the government so that the government can develop the nation. Taxes are only theft if nothing is being done with the taxes, which are supposed to benefit the nation and its citizens.

[Infected Mushroom]

Ummm, no.

As a citizen it is your duty to pay taxes to the government so that the government can develop the nation. Taxes are only theft if nothing is being done with the taxes, which are supposed to benefit the nation and its citizens.

the government isn't some kind of a Robin Hood

Its more like a Sheriff of Nottingham/Prince John type figure

stealing is stealing, and stealing is wrong, its the intention (did they intend to deprive and appropriate)... NOT what the money will then be used to buy

[Galloism]

Then let me rephrase. SHOULD the corporation be able to extract rent if you refuse to leave the property the corporation controls?

It should be able to do whatever you agreed for it to do.

Let's assume you lived rent free in the property before, but the corporation decided via vote of the shareholders not to permit that anymore. Those who do not pay rent are required to pack up and leave.

You voted no, but were outvoted.

You are saying that a corporation should never be able to change policy without a unanimous vote?