Taxes are a form of Theft

[Galloism]

So is it ok to dine and dash? Why or why not?

It is stealing.

Why? Hypothetically, you never explicitly consented to pay them. How is it stealing to refuse to pay?

You're the one living in stolen property. No guilt?

By your rationale, we're pretty much all living on stolen land. Do you feel guilty about it? As one of the currently living people, I feel no guilt about utilizing a world which once belonged to others as they are dead and have thus moved beyond having any use for it.

Actually, by your logic, we are all living in stolen land. I don't feel guilty about it because I accept that the "right of conquest" was sufficiently valid to establish our modern property rights overall. Your failure to do so it what makes all land stolen land, at some point or other. You should feel guilty.

I accept the right of conquest, so I have no guilt about living in this land. The rights were established via conquest, and subsequently sold with certain conditions attached.


Incidentally, per your logic, given that say, all original owners of the post-gazette press room building are all dead, then post gazette really has no right to the building. If squatters came in and started living there, the post gazette is shit out of luck and should just move on.

This inevitable consequence of your "well, all the original owners are dead so property rights no longer matter" falls down. At the moment of death, those property rights were inherited by SOMEONE. They were then inherited by someone else when that person died, etc. Property rights never disappear - they are always reassigned to someone or something else, and entities can live for a very long time. Hell, some corporations are incredibly old. The Kongo Gumi corporation operated for over 1400 years. It maintained its property rights for the entire duration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kong%C5%8D_Gumi

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

Taxation isn't theft, more like slavery. It's almost as bad as the Holocaust.

I wasn't serious, in case you didn't notice.

[BK117B2]

It is stealing.

Why? Hypothetically, you never explicitly consented to pay them. How is it stealing to refuse to pay?

They never consented to giving you any charity.

By your rationale, we're pretty much all living on stolen land. Do you feel guilty about it? As one of the currently living people, I feel no guilt about utilizing a world which once belonged to others as they are dead and have thus moved beyond having any use for it.

Actually, by your logic, we are all living in stolen land. I don't feel guilty about it because I accept that the "right of conquest" was sufficiently valid to establish our modern property rights overall. Your failure to do so it what makes all land stolen land, at some point or other. You should feel guilty.

That's not true. It has been stolen in the past, true. That doesn't mean that it is currently stolen. No wonder you feel no guilt, you don't actually care about property rights. You've made it clear that you consider taking from other people to be a valid way to acquire things. The real question is why you consider theft okay, but are so adamant about it not being called theft.

I accept the right of conquest, so I have no guilt about living in this land. The rights were established via conquest, and subsequently sold with certain conditions attached.

If taking from others is (as you have repeatedly claimed) a valid source of ownership, then by that logic, all anyone need do is state that they are taking the land. Bam, all done, they're the new owners.

Incidentally, per your logic, given that say, all original owners of the post-gazette press room building are all dead, then post gazette really has no right to the building. If squatters came in and started living there, the post gazette is shit out of luck and should just move on.

You're confused. You're making up something and calling it mine. The original owners being dead is not relevant. There are CURRENT owners.

This inevitable consequence of your "well, all the original owners are dead so property rights no longer matter" falls down. At the moment of death, those property rights were inherited by SOMEONE. They were then inherited by someone else when that person died, etc. Property rights never disappear - they are always reassigned to someone or something else, and entities can live for a very long time. Hell, some corporations are incredibly old. The Kongo Gumi corporation operated for over 1400 years. It maintained its property rights for the entire duration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kong%C5%8D_Gumi

Again with your preference for straw men over addressing actual positions, I see. People are the only ones with property rights. Governments, corporations, religious groups are just organizational structures having possession of something by proxy for people. When property is abandoned, it can be claimed and used by others instead of just left sitting around for the rest of eternity.

[Galloism]

Why? Hypothetically, you never explicitly consented to pay them. How is it stealing to refuse to pay?

They never consented to giving you any charity.

The government never consented to giving you absolute carte blanche either. There was a price to pay. So you must pay it, as long as you continue to stay here.

Yes, even people on welfare pay taxes.

Actually, by your logic, we are all living in stolen land. I don't feel guilty about it because I accept that the "right of conquest" was sufficiently valid to establish our modern property rights overall. Your failure to do so it what makes all land stolen land, at some point or other. You should feel guilty.

That's not true. It has been stolen in the past, true. That doesn't mean that it is currently stolen. No wonder you feel no guilt, you don't actually care about property rights. You've made it clear that you consider taking from other people to be a valid way to acquire things. The real question is why you consider theft okay, but are so adamant about it not being called theft.

So when did it turn from stolen land to legitimate land? When did the heirs of the conquered people lose all rights to the land?

Specify a point, and tell me why that point doesn't apply to the government.

I accept the right of conquest, so I have no guilt about living in this land. The rights were established via conquest, and subsequently sold with certain conditions attached.

If taking from others is (as you have repeatedly claimed) a valid source of ownership, then by that logic, all anyone need do is state that they are taking the land. Bam, all done, they're the new owners.

Not that easy. The right of conquest was more complicated than that. It was accepted as international law until the War of Aggression principle was phased in as part of the Nuremburg Principles, and then codified as a UN resolution in 1974.

Right of conquest no longer applies. It once did. The fact that it once did is the basis for our property claims now.

You can read about the right of conquest here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_conquest

It's sort of like how it was once illegal to smoke pot in Colorado. It no longer is (at the state level). However, people who smoked pot and got caught before it became legal are still in jail, because it was illegal at the time.

The fact that the right of conquest was legal at the time is the basis for our property claims now, even though it is no longer legal.

Incidentally, per your logic, given that say, all original owners of the post-gazette press room building are all dead, then post gazette really has no right to the building. If squatters came in and started living there, the post gazette is shit out of luck and should just move on.

You're confused. You're making up something and calling it mine. The original owners being dead is not relevant. There are CURRENT owners.

Those current owners had to get them from the original owners, either directly or by extension, or their ownership claim is not valid. That's the point. You can't just take something and claim it's yours when someone, or that person's descendents, have legal right to it.

The government still possesses and retains certain current ownership rights over all the land in its territory. There are current owners making up the government right now, and there always have been.

This inevitable consequence of your "well, all the original owners are dead so property rights no longer matter" falls down. At the moment of death, those property rights were inherited by SOMEONE. They were then inherited by someone else when that person died, etc. Property rights never disappear - they are always reassigned to someone or something else, and entities can live for a very long time. Hell, some corporations are incredibly old. The Kongo Gumi corporation operated for over 1400 years. It maintained its property rights for the entire duration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kong%C5%8D_Gumi

Again with your preference for straw men over addressing actual positions, I see. People are the only ones with property rights. Governments, corporations, religious groups are just organizational structures having possession of something by proxy for people. When property is abandoned, it can be claimed and used by others instead of just left sitting around for the rest of eternity.

So, the government being made up of people, can exercise property rights on behalf of its citizens, correct? And it may continue to do so even as citizens die and are replaced with other citizens, correct?

Please show me where the government abandoned all claims to your land that it has held since acquiring it. Unless you can, as it has continued to exist, it has continued to hold proxy authority for its citizens over these properties and lands. It claimed those rights before any of the people alive were alive, and continuously claimed those rights on vacant land nobody was using before people settled there. Just because it then allowed people to settle there, under certain terms, does not mean its abandoned its claims to those properties.

Once people did settle there, the rights continued to persist on behalf of the government's citizens.

[Esternial]

I can't believe it...

Well that's good.

/thread.

[Infected Mushroom]

I can't believe it...

Well that's good.

/thread.

there's a great deal more content to this thread than just that simple remark

[BK117B2]

They never consented to giving you any charity.

The government never consented to giving you absolute carte blanche either. There was a price to pay. So you must pay it, as long as you continue to stay here.

Yes, even people on welfare pay taxes.

The government doesn't need to consent for me to exercise my own rights in order for me to exercise my own rights. Yeah, there is a price to pay: the extortionist threats are an unfortunate price that is currently part of reality. That doesn't mean that it is a good thing or that theft isn't theft.

That's not true. It has been stolen in the past, true. That doesn't mean that it is currently stolen. No wonder you feel no guilt, you don't actually care about property rights. You've made it clear that you consider taking from other people to be a valid way to acquire things. The real question is why you consider theft okay, but are so adamant about it not being called theft.

So when did it turn from stolen land to legitimate land? When did the heirs of the conquered people lose all rights to the land?

Specify a point, and tell me why that point doesn't apply to the government.

The point at which it was abandoned. Why tell you why it doesn't apply to government? That's a notion you came up with, so obviously you are the one to ask.

If taking from others is (as you have repeatedly claimed) a valid source of ownership, then by that logic, all anyone need do is state that they are taking the land. Bam, all done, they're the new owners.

Not that easy. The right of conquest was more complicated than that. It was accepted as international law until the War of Aggression principle was phased in as part of the Nuremburg Principles, and then codified as a UN resolution in 1974.

Right of conquest no longer applies. It once did. The fact that it once did is the basis for our property claims now.

You can read about the right of conquest here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_conquest

It's sort of like how it was once illegal to smoke pot in Colorado. It no longer is (at the state level). However, people who smoked pot and got caught before it became legal are still in jail, because it was illegal at the time.

The fact that the right of conquest was legal at the time is the basis for our property claims now, even though it is no longer legal.

You missed a rather obvious gap that prevents what you say from being true. Right of conquest (not actually a right, just a LAW in some places) doesn't magically make it legal to invade and conquer another country. The laws of your country are irrelevant to the legality of the conquest. The only 'legal' conquest is when the CONQUERED country states that it is legal. That has rarely been the case.

You're confused. You're making up something and calling it mine. The original owners being dead is not relevant. There are CURRENT owners.

Those current owners had to get them from the original owners, either directly or by extension, or their ownership claim is not valid. That's the point. You can't just take something and claim it's yours when someone, or that person's descendents, have legal right to it.

The government still possesses and retains certain current ownership rights over all the land in its territory. There are current owners making up the government right now, and there always have been.

Wrong. Abandoned property can still be claimed. The government is only a proxy for people, and can only have any ownership rights when given them by people. I don't give the government any ownership rights over my land.

Again with your preference for straw men over addressing actual positions, I see. People are the only ones with property rights. Governments, corporations, religious groups are just organizational structures having possession of something by proxy for people. When property is abandoned, it can be claimed and used by others instead of just left sitting around for the rest of eternity.

So, the government being made up of people, can exercise property rights on behalf of its citizens, correct? And it may continue to do so even as citizens die and are replaced with other citizens, correct?

Please show me where the government abandoned all claims to your land that it has held since acquiring it. Unless you can, as it has continued to exist, it has continued to hold proxy authority for its citizens over these properties and lands. It claimed those rights before any of the people alive were alive, and continuously claimed those rights on vacant land nobody was using before people settled there. Just because it then allowed people to settle there, under certain terms, does not mean its abandoned its claims to those properties.

Once people did settle there, the rights continued to persist on behalf of the government's citizens.

The government sold the land without such a condition and it has since been passed on to a number of other owners also without that condition. Selling something isn't abandoning of it, but it does mean that you lose any rights to anything other than what the contract states. The government can only have property rights as a proxy for people. My wife and I are the only owners, and haven't authorized the government to act as our proxy regarding this land.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

The world is full of criminal gangs and terrorist organizations. The most successful ones are known as states. What a shock...

Unlike real criminal enterprises, however, states invest the collected taxes into various projects that benefit everyone, not just the elite collecting them (at least in theory). Hence, taxation isn't theft but a form of social contract.

[Infected Mushroom]

The world is full of criminal gangs and terrorist organizations. The most successful ones are known as states. What a shock...

Unlike real criminal enterprises, however, states invest the collected taxes into various projects that benefit everyone, not just the elite collecting them (at least in theory). Hence, taxation isn't theft but a form of social contract.

except there is no such thing as a social contract

[Galloism]

The world is full of criminal gangs and terrorist organizations. The most successful ones are known as states. What a shock...

Unlike real criminal enterprises, however, states invest the collected taxes into various projects that benefit everyone, not just the elite collecting them (at least in theory). Hence, taxation isn't theft but a form of social contract.

except there is no such thing as a social contract

It's kind of a metaphor or model of reality, not necessarily a literal piece of paper.

[Dyakovo]

Why? Hypothetically, you never explicitly consented to pay them. How is it stealing to refuse to pay?

They never consented to giving you any charity.

The government never consented to giving you charity, ergo not only is taxation not theft, not paying your taxes is.

[Dyakovo]

The world is full of criminal gangs and terrorist organizations. The most successful ones are known as states. What a shock...

Unlike real criminal enterprises, however, states invest the collected taxes into various projects that benefit everyone, not just the elite collecting them (at least in theory). Hence, taxation isn't theft but a form of social contract.

except there is no such thing as a social contract

True. There, however, is such a thing as the social contract.

[Infected Mushroom]

except there is no such thing as a social contract

True. There, however, is such a thing as the social contract.

there really isn't, its a misappropriation of contract law terminology to justify government oppression of the people

[Hurdegaryp]

True. There, however, is such a thing as the social contract.

there really isn't, its a misappropriation of contract law terminology to justify government oppression of the people

So people who make it a sport to be blunt and antisocial are actually rebels against the government, hm? Many now tip their fedora's to you, good sir.

[Infected Mushroom]

there really isn't, its a misappropriation of contract law terminology to justify government oppression of the people

So people who make it a sport to be blunt and antisocial are actually rebels against the government, hm? Many now tip their fedora's to you, good sir.

what do you mean?

[Galloism]

The government never consented to giving you absolute carte blanche either. There was a price to pay. So you must pay it, as long as you continue to stay here.

Yes, even people on welfare pay taxes.

The government doesn't need to consent for me to exercise my own rights in order for me to exercise my own rights. Yeah, there is a price to pay: the extortionist threats are an unfortunate price that is currently part of reality. That doesn't mean that it is a good thing or that theft isn't theft.

No, but when theft must be illegal to be theft, which it must, and it's not illegal, it's not theft.

Words have meanings. Taxes cannot be theft because they do not meet the definition of theft.

So when did it turn from stolen land to legitimate land? When did the heirs of the conquered people lose all rights to the land?

Specify a point, and tell me why that point doesn't apply to the government.

The point at which it was abandoned.

It's never been fully abandoned, or, conversely, it was claimed by the government immediately upon such abandonment. The government has exercised these claims on behalf of the people the entire time. You just gave absolute right for the government, on behalf of the people, to have valid claims immediately once a property has been abandoned.

Because once a property has been abandoned, anyone can claim it. The government claimed certain rights to it, so now it has it.

Why tell you why it doesn't apply to government? That's a notion you came up with, so obviously you are the one to ask.

Read the above.

Not that easy. The right of conquest was more complicated than that. It was accepted as international law until the War of Aggression principle was phased in as part of the Nuremburg Principles, and then codified as a UN resolution in 1974.

Right of conquest no longer applies. It once did. The fact that it once did is the basis for our property claims now.

You can read about the right of conquest here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_conquest

It's sort of like how it was once illegal to smoke pot in Colorado. It no longer is (at the state level). However, people who smoked pot and got caught before it became legal are still in jail, because it was illegal at the time.

The fact that the right of conquest was legal at the time is the basis for our property claims now, even though it is no longer legal.

You missed a rather obvious gap that prevents what you say from being true. Right of conquest (not actually a right, just a LAW in some places) doesn't magically make it legal to invade and conquer another country. The laws of your country are irrelevant to the legality of the conquest. The only 'legal' conquest is when the CONQUERED country states that it is legal. That has rarely been the case.

Then your property claim is not valid. Try again.

Those current owners had to get them from the original owners, either directly or by extension, or their ownership claim is not valid. That's the point. You can't just take something and claim it's yours when someone, or that person's descendents, have legal right to it.

The government still possesses and retains certain current ownership rights over all the land in its territory. There are current owners making up the government right now, and there always have been.

Wrong. Abandoned property can still be claimed. The government is only a proxy for people, and can only have any ownership rights when given them by people. I don't give the government any ownership rights over my land.

No, but the original landholder either did, or the property sat abandoned at some point at some time. If it was ever abandoned while the government was in existence and exercised these claims, then you don't have a leg to stand on even by your OWN logic.

So, the government being made up of people, can exercise property rights on behalf of its citizens, correct? And it may continue to do so even as citizens die and are replaced with other citizens, correct?

Please show me where the government abandoned all claims to your land that it has held since acquiring it. Unless you can, as it has continued to exist, it has continued to hold proxy authority for its citizens over these properties and lands. It claimed those rights before any of the people alive were alive, and continuously claimed those rights on vacant land nobody was using before people settled there. Just because it then allowed people to settle there, under certain terms, does not mean its abandoned its claims to those properties.

Once people did settle there, the rights continued to persist on behalf of the government's citizens.

The government sold the land without such a condition and it has since been passed on to a number of other owners also without that condition. Selling something isn't abandoning of it, but it does mean that you lose any rights to anything other than what the contract states. The government can only have property rights as a proxy for people. My wife and I are the only owners, and haven't authorized the government to act as our proxy regarding this land.

Then you should have a document clearly stating the government has surrendered sovreignty rights over your land upon its sale to whoever bought it from the government. I'll wait while you produce it.

[Hurdegaryp]

So people who make it a sport to be blunt and antisocial are actually rebels against the government, hm? Many now tip their fedora's to you, good sir.

what do you mean?

Is it not obvious? Is it not crystal clear? The only path left for you to take is to go out there and start a campaign of chaos, mayhem and unprecedented levels of destruction in order to bring civilization down, so you can build a brave new world upon the ruins of the old one, no doubt assisted by your legions of admiring and dedicated followers.

[BK117B2]

They never consented to giving you any charity.

The government never consented to giving you charity, ergo not only is taxation not theft, not paying your taxes is.

That's nonsensical. Lack of charity =/= theft.

[Dyakovo]

The government never consented to giving you charity, ergo not only is taxation not theft, not paying your taxes is.

That's nonsensical. Lack of charity =/= theft.

So the dine and dash isn't theft either...

[Ifreann]

True. There, however, is such a thing as the social contract.

there really isn't, its a misappropriation of contract law terminology to justify government oppression of the people

The word "contract" does not exclusively refer to legal contracts.

[BK117B2]

The government doesn't need to consent for me to exercise my own rights in order for me to exercise my own rights. Yeah, there is a price to pay: the extortionist threats are an unfortunate price that is currently part of reality. That doesn't mean that it is a good thing or that theft isn't theft.

No, but when theft must be illegal to be theft, which it must, and it's not illegal, it's not theft.

Words have meanings. Taxes cannot be theft because they do not meet the definition of theft.

So you've posted this many times on a topic about theft without knowing the meaning of theft.

Theft is "the action or crime of stealing." So, an action of stealing, even without any broken law, IS theft.

The point at which it was abandoned.

It's never been fully abandoned, or, conversely, it was claimed by the government immediately upon such abandonment. The government has exercised these claims on behalf of the people the entire time. You just gave absolute right for the government, on behalf of the people, to have valid claims immediately once a property has been abandoned.

Because once a property has been abandoned, anyone can claim it. The government claimed certain rights to it, so now it has it.

Wrong. I haven't abandoned it, so it has not become communal property.

Why tell you why it doesn't apply to government? That's a notion you came up with, so obviously you are the one to ask.

Read the above.

I read it, and you haven't answered the question. Why should I be the one to explain to you something that you came up with?

You missed a rather obvious gap that prevents what you say from being true. Right of conquest (not actually a right, just a LAW in some places) doesn't magically make it legal to invade and conquer another country. The laws of your country are irrelevant to the legality of the conquest. The only 'legal' conquest is when the CONQUERED country states that it is legal. That has rarely been the case.

Then your property claim is not valid. Try again.

Ooooh, so you're going with 'nuh-uh' as your argument.

Wrong. Abandoned property can still be claimed. The government is only a proxy for people, and can only have any ownership rights when given them by people. I don't give the government any ownership rights over my land.

No, but the original landholder either did, or the property sat abandoned at some point at some time. If it was ever abandoned while the government was in existence and exercised these claims, then you don't have a leg to stand on even by your OWN logic.

The original landholder is not relevant. They are dead and do not have any authority to give over my rights.

The government sold the land without such a condition and it has since been passed on to a number of other owners also without that condition. Selling something isn't abandoning of it, but it does mean that you lose any rights to anything other than what the contract states. The government can only have property rights as a proxy for people. My wife and I are the only owners, and haven't authorized the government to act as our proxy regarding this land.

Then you should have a document clearly stating the government has surrendered sovreignty rights over your land upon its sale to whoever bought it from the government. I'll wait while you produce it.

That's illogical. Selling it without any contract reserving certain things for yourself means you don't have those things. Basically you're saying that 'since they never made something, you should be able to produce evidence of its existence'

[BK117B2]

there really isn't, its a misappropriation of contract law terminology to justify government oppression of the people

The word "contract" does not exclusively refer to legal contracts.

But it does involve an agreement. A contract does not exist unless the involved parties have actually agreed to it

[BK117B2]

That's nonsensical. Lack of charity =/= theft.

So the dine and dash isn't theft either...

That is not rational. By definition, dining and dashing is theft.

[Infected Mushroom]

there really isn't, its a misappropriation of contract law terminology to justify government oppression of the people

The word "contract" does not exclusively refer to legal contracts.

the word contract is fundamentally legal in nature, anything else is a misappropriation of the term

[Ifreann]

The word "contract" does not exclusively refer to legal contracts.

the word contract is fundamentally legal in nature, anything else is a misappropriation of the term

The English language allows it to be used in other senses. It has been so used for centuries. Deal with it.