Taxation is Coercion

[Kazomal]

listen, I'm not saying that taxes and governments are nessecerry (although I do think that, I won't try to argue it here), all I'm saying is that if you benefit from the structure of this particular society, you have to pay into it, or else you're free riding on everyone else's tax revenue. Thus, tax is not theft. Wether or not those benefits could have come about some other way is irrelevant, this is how they did and do exist, so if you use them, you pay.

What level taxes are at and how they are assessed and collected is another matter entirely.

Do I have an option not to free ride?

Pay into a system you don't like, leach off of everyone else, or move somewhere a government can't get you and become truly self-sufficent (not yet impossible, but damn hard and getting closer and closer).

A better way to advocate may be "there's a better way," but to call taxes "theft" is just dishonest. If you think there's a better way, say that and explain you points to people.

Other that that, you options are pay or leach.

[Bendira]

listen, I'm not saying that taxes and governments are nessecerry (although I do think that, I won't try to argue it here), all I'm saying is that if you benefit from the structure of this particular society, you have to pay into it, or else you're free riding on everyone else's tax revenue. Thus, tax is not theft. Wether or not those benefits could have come about some other way is irrelevant, this is how they did and do exist, so if you use them, you pay.

What level taxes are at and how they are assessed and collected is another matter entirely.

Do I have an option not to free ride?

Free riders are bad.

Is that your intelligent argument?

Oh my yes.

No, an argument would be;
Free riders take from society/government/movement without giving back.
Taking something without giving back is wrong.
Ergo, Free Riders are wrong.

I am forced to be a free rider if I don't pay my taxes.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

What the hell is he talking about?

[Bendira]

listen, I'm not saying that taxes and governments are nessecerry (although I do think that, I won't try to argue it here), all I'm saying is that if you benefit from the structure of this particular society, you have to pay into it, or else you're free riding on everyone else's tax revenue. Thus, tax is not theft. Wether or not those benefits could have come about some other way is irrelevant, this is how they did and do exist, so if you use them, you pay.

What level taxes are at and how they are assessed and collected is another matter entirely.

Do I have an option not to free ride?

Pay into a system you don't like, leach off of everyone else, or move somewhere a government can't get you and become truly self-sufficent (not yet impossible, but damn hard and getting closer and closer).

A better way to advocate may be "there's a better way," but to call taxes "theft" is just dishonest. If you think there's a better way, say that and explain you points to people.

Other that that, you options are pay or leach.

No, because even though I coudl theoretically leach for a while, I would eventually just go to prison and have my freedom taken from me. And since when does it make me the one thats morally wrong if I am forced into leaching? I am being forced to accept these services I don't necessarily want or need. I don't want to pay for them. Why should I have to? And no, I can't move somewhere else. Theres no place in the world I can go other than a deserted island where I wouldn't have to pay taxes.

[Hernier]

you are protected by the police from theft correct? If you house was to suddenly catch fire you would call the fire department? You use roads, and sidewalks? You vote? I find it hard to believe that you do use/want any of these services.

[The Digital Rule]

It's funny how much effort you guys put into such a menial issue. The only reason you have issues with this is because you elect representatives to deal with the political matters for you, thus using their political bias to influence the laws which govern the country.

The Digital Rule has no official leaders or politicians. Businesses create political unions to pool their advertising budget and try to sway public opinion, but in the end their political spending is capped by laws also voted upon by the public, just as they decide how much money is collected, how it is collected, and what it is spent on. People still sit and argue over policies, but none of them are paid by the state to do so.

Don't you wish your policies were hot like mine
Dont cha wish your policies were freaks like mine
Dont cha, dont cha
Dont cha wish your policies were raw like mine
Dont cha wish your policies were fun like mine
Dont cha, dont cha

*EDIT: You have to accept that while you're not wrong for saying "I don't want a fire department, so I shouldn't have to pay for one" the general masses decide you are wrong, and won't let you be different. There are ways you should behave and ways you should think in society, social/stereotypical norms which you must conform to in order to make integration easier. Don't you dare play with that barbie doll if you're a boy, for example People are calling for "Justice for Jacko" when he used to touch children inappropriately. Public view ain't right, and neither is yours, or mine, but do as the majority feels unless you have the power to change their opinion by yourself.

[Bendira]

you are protected by the police from theft correct? If you house was to suddenly catch fire you would call the fire department? You use roads, and sidewalks? You vote? I find it hard to believe that you do use/want any of these services.

The police don't protect me from theft. The police get there after my shit has been stolen. I would be the person that would protect myself from theft, but of course I can't because the government dosn't allow me to bare arms.

I obviously would call the fire department if my house caught on fire, because I have no other choice under our current system.

I barely use roads, I use sidewalks often. Once again, I have no other choice.

I don't vote.

The fact that you find it hard to believe I don't want any of these services is understandable, considering you are completely misinterpreting my argument to mean I literally do not want these services. I want some of them, but I want them in control of private companies that can compete with eachother for business. Not ones provided by a corrupt government.

[Bendira]

*EDIT: You have to accept that while you're not wrong for saying "I don't want a fire department, so I shouldn't have to pay for one" the general masses decide you are wrong, and won't let you be different. There are ways you should behave and ways you should think in society, social/stereotypical norms which you must conform to in order to make integration easier. Don't you dare play with that barbie doll if you're a boy, for example People are calling for "Justice for Jacko" when he used to touch children inappropriately. Public view ain't right, and neither is yours, or mine, but do as the majority feels unless you have the power to change their opinion by yourself.

Why do I have to accept it again?

[Kazomal]

listen, I'm not saying that taxes and governments are nessecerry (although I do think that, I won't try to argue it here), all I'm saying is that if you benefit from the structure of this particular society, you have to pay into it, or else you're free riding on everyone else's tax revenue. Thus, tax is not theft. Wether or not those benefits could have come about some other way is irrelevant, this is how they did and do exist, so if you use them, you pay.

What level taxes are at and how they are assessed and collected is another matter entirely.

Do I have an option not to free ride?

Pay into a system you don't like, leach off of everyone else, or move somewhere a government can't get you and become truly self-sufficent (not yet impossible, but damn hard and getting closer and closer).

A better way to advocate may be "there's a better way," but to call taxes "theft" is just dishonest. If you think there's a better way, say that and explain you points to people.

Other that that, you options are pay or leach.

No, because even though I coudl theoretically leach for a while, I would eventually just go to prison and have my freedom taken from me. And since when does it make me the one thats morally wrong if I am forced into leaching? I am being forced to accept these services I don't necessarily want or need. I don't want to pay for them. Why should I have to? And no, I can't move somewhere else. Theres no place in the world I can go other than a deserted island where I wouldn't have to pay taxes.

And that's how you be self-sufficent. The deserted island thing.

Everyone else (or at least a majority) does want these services, does want to live in this type of society. To do that requires a collective cost, as the only way to "op out" of these benefits is to leave the society.

Or, to put it more bluntly, it doesn't matter what your other options are, you live in this society, you pay to upkeep it.

Yeah, they make you pay your taxes, and the gov backs up it's rule with the gun, but that doesn't make it theft. If I go to jail for breaking a law I disagree with and never agreed to, it would be dishonest to say that I have been kidnapped.

We switched from the "rule of nature" (no rule at all) to a civil society in which we have given up many of our "rights." We are never consulted, but if enough people disagree, there are ways to get things changed (although they require a lot of money or a lot of guns, and a lot of people who agree with you in either case)

[Hernier]

you are protected by the police from theft correct? If you house was to suddenly catch fire you would call the fire department? You use roads, and sidewalks? You vote? I find it hard to believe that you do use/want any of these services.

The police don't protect me from theft. The police get there after my shit has been stolen. I would be the person that would protect myself from theft, but of course I can't because the government dosn't allow me to bare arms.

I obviously would call the fire department if my house caught on fire, because I have no other choice under our current system.

I barely use roads, I use sidewalks often. Once again, I have no other choice.

I don't vote.

The fact that you find it hard to believe I don't want any of these services is understandable, considering you are completely misinterpreting my argument to mean I literally do not want these services. I want some of them, but I want them in control of private companies that can compete with eachother for business. Not ones provided by a corrupt government.

I fail to understand how private companies could be trusted to run the police department, make a profit off a sidewalk, and still provide service to everyone, or run the fire department.

[Kevin361]

Do you know anything about externalities? One reason for taxes is to raise the price of goods that give off negative externalities enough to compensate for the negative externalities. I think it is much easier to argue that unchecked negative externalities is much more of theft than taxation.

[Bendira]

listen, I'm not saying that taxes and governments are nessecerry (although I do think that, I won't try to argue it here), all I'm saying is that if you benefit from the structure of this particular society, you have to pay into it, or else you're free riding on everyone else's tax revenue. Thus, tax is not theft. Wether or not those benefits could have come about some other way is irrelevant, this is how they did and do exist, so if you use them, you pay.

What level taxes are at and how they are assessed and collected is another matter entirely.

Do I have an option not to free ride?

Pay into a system you don't like, leach off of everyone else, or move somewhere a government can't get you and become truly self-sufficent (not yet impossible, but damn hard and getting closer and closer).

A better way to advocate may be "there's a better way," but to call taxes "theft" is just dishonest. If you think there's a better way, say that and explain you points to people.

Other that that, you options are pay or leach.

No, because even though I coudl theoretically leach for a while, I would eventually just go to prison and have my freedom taken from me. And since when does it make me the one thats morally wrong if I am forced into leaching? I am being forced to accept these services I don't necessarily want or need. I don't want to pay for them. Why should I have to? And no, I can't move somewhere else. Theres no place in the world I can go other than a deserted island where I wouldn't have to pay taxes.

And that's how you be self-sufficent. The deserted island thing.

Everyone else (or at least a majority) does want these services, does want to live in this type of society. To do that requires a collective cost, as the only way to "op out" of these benefits is to leave the society.

Or, to put it more bluntly, it doesn't matter what your other options are, you live in this society, you pay to upkeep it.

Yeah, they make you pay your taxes, and the gov backs up it's rule with the gun, but that doesn't make it theft. If I go to jail for breaking a law I disagree with and never agreed to, it would be dishonest to say that I have been kidnapped.

We switched from the "rule of nature" (no rule at all) to a civil society in which we have given up many of our "rights." We are never consulted, but if enough people disagree, there are ways to get things changed (although they require a lot of money or a lot of guns, and a lot of people who agree with you in either case)

(Copy and Paste from what I said earlier)

Here is the fundamental problem with this argument. Typically when presented with a problem, a choice is defined as a logical route to take in solving your problem. So lets take, for example, a man who wanted to travel from his house to a diner. He considers his options, and logically he comes up with 3 choices. He can either walk, ride his bike or drive (for the sake of keeping it simple, I will leave out the other obvious choices such as taxi or bus). So when you think of a choice, you would think of 3 logical choices right? Well technically, he has the choice to kill himself and not have to worry about the diner at all. But nobody rational would actually entertain such a rediculous choice. Many would barely consider it a choice at all, since it solves the problem in such an "inefficient" way. So your argument that we should GTFO is the metaphorical suicide choice, where it is just plain rediculous.


To the rest of your post, thats the fundamental difference between you and me. You think violent coersion is acceptable, and I don't think it is.

[Xomic]

The fact that you find it hard to believe I don't want any of these services is understandable, considering you are completely misinterpreting my argument to mean I literally do not want these services. I want some of them, but I want them in control of private companies that can compete with eachother for business. Not ones provided by a corrupt government.

So, when your house catches fire, you want the opinion to shop around and get estimates on how much each fire department will cost you to put out the house fire?

You know, the funny part about the whole competition argument is that, in reality, it's easier for corporations to not compete with one another, and merely charge around the same price. If two pizza places serve two different areas, there's no reason for them to compete with one another.

[Bendira]

you are protected by the police from theft correct? If you house was to suddenly catch fire you would call the fire department? You use roads, and sidewalks? You vote? I find it hard to believe that you do use/want any of these services.

The police don't protect me from theft. The police get there after my shit has been stolen. I would be the person that would protect myself from theft, but of course I can't because the government dosn't allow me to bare arms.

I obviously would call the fire department if my house caught on fire, because I have no other choice under our current system.

I barely use roads, I use sidewalks often. Once again, I have no other choice.

I don't vote.

The fact that you find it hard to believe I don't want any of these services is understandable, considering you are completely misinterpreting my argument to mean I literally do not want these services. I want some of them, but I want them in control of private companies that can compete with eachother for business. Not ones provided by a corrupt government.

I fail to understand how private companies could be trusted to run the police department, make a profit off a sidewalk, and still provide service to everyone, or run the fire department.

Then you have some reading to do. www.mises.org

[Bendira]

The fact that you find it hard to believe I don't want any of these services is understandable, considering you are completely misinterpreting my argument to mean I literally do not want these services. I want some of them, but I want them in control of private companies that can compete with eachother for business. Not ones provided by a corrupt government.

So, when your house catches fire, you want the opinion to shop around and get estimates on how much each fire department will cost you to put out the house fire?

You know, the funny part about the whole competition argument is that, in reality, it's easier for corporations to not compete with one another, and merely charge around the same price. If two pizza places serve two different areas, there's no reason for them to compete with one another.

I would have a fire department previously selected to call in case of a fire. Its not like im going to be sitting there looking through the phone book while the fire is going.

And two corporations in a truly free market would not fail to compete, because if they did it would create a monopoly, and a new competitor would emerge, charge lower prices and steal all of their business.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

And two corporations in a truly free market would not fail to compete, because if they did it would create a monopoly, and a new competitor would emerge, charge lower prices and steal all of their business.

Except a monopoly can afford to lose money on a product to drive all competitors out of business. You know. Like they did. And like businesses do today.

It's like the corporatists live in some sort of fantasy world where everything is good and happy and the rivers run fat with milk and honey - all courtesy of the competition faerie.

[Hernier]

The fact that you find it hard to believe I don't want any of these services is understandable, considering you are completely misinterpreting my argument to mean I literally do not want these services. I want some of them, but I want them in control of private companies that can compete with eachother for business. Not ones provided by a corrupt government.

So, when your house catches fire, you want the opinion to shop around and get estimates on how much each fire department will cost you to put out the house fire?

You know, the funny part about the whole competition argument is that, in reality, it's easier for corporations to not compete with one another, and merely charge around the same price. If two pizza places serve two different areas, there's no reason for them to compete with one another.

I would have a fire department previously selected to call in case of a fire. Its not like im going to be sitting there looking through the phone book while the fire is going.

And two corporations in a truly free market would not fail to compete, because if they did it would create a monopoly, and a new competitor would emerge, charge lower prices and steal all of their business.

What about the poor? Are they just expected to let their house burn down? The problem with letting corporations run things is that they do not care for people who cannot afford their services, unless you changed the legal responsibilities of corporations in which case I would have to reconsider your argument.

[Bendira]

And two corporations in a truly free market would not fail to compete, because if they did it would create a monopoly, and a new competitor would emerge, charge lower prices and steal all of their business.

Except a monopoly can afford to lose money on a product to drive all competitors out of business. You know. Like they did. And like businesses do today.

It's like the corporatists live in some sort of fantasy world where everything is good and happy and the rivers run fat with milk and honey - all courtesy of the competition faerie.

Yeah, if all the competitors are selling an identical product may be. And if a monopoly lowers its prices below market price to put somebody out of business, what is to stop another corporation from buying a bulkload of those products and seriously hurting their profit margin, then reselling the product at a later date for slightly higher than they payed for it?

[MisanthropicPopulism]

Yeah, if all the competitors are selling an identical product may be. And if a monopoly lowers its prices below market price to put somebody out of business, what is to stop another corporation from buying a bulkload of those products and seriously hurting their profit margin, then reselling the product at a later date for slightly higher than they payed for it?

I don't know. Why don't you do some research into American history or Wal-Mart then come back and answer it for me.

Things that also don't exist in corporatist fantasy land: history classes. Schools consist solely of business classes and some sort of cult-like indoctrination class into the greatness of business and the free market faerie.

[Bendira]

Yeah, if all the competitors are selling an identical product may be. And if a monopoly lowers its prices below market price to put somebody out of business, what is to stop another corporation from buying a bulkload of those products and seriously hurting their profit margin, then reselling the product at a later date for slightly higher than they payed for it?

I don't know. Why don't you do some research into American history or Wal-Mart then come back and answer it for me.

Thats a really ignorant statement, since in our society we have things like patents and intellectual property laws, and government regulations. Where as in a free market none of those things would exist.

[Xomic]

And two corporations in a truly free market would not fail to compete, because if they did it would create a monopoly, and a new competitor would emerge, charge lower prices and steal all of their business.

No, in a truly free market, the corporations only compete when needed, such as to drive a new competitor out of business. Further, New competitors are unlikely to arise in areas where large amounts of capital are required, such as power or fire stations.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

Thats a really ignorant statement, since in our society we have things like patents and intellectual property laws, and government regulations. Where as in a free market none of those things would exist.

I have no idea what fucking point you are trying to make.

[Bendira]

Thats a really ignorant statement, since in our society we have things like patents and intellectual property laws, and government regulations. Where as in a free market none of those things would exist.

I have no idea what fucking point you are trying to make.

Your example of WAL-MART and other phenomenon in our system aren't the results of a free market, because they didn't occur in a free market. So you are basing your empirical evidence on a system that isn't anywhere near a free market.

[Hernier]

Thats a really ignorant statement, since in our society we have things like patents and intellectual property laws, and government regulations. Where as in a free market none of those things would exist.

I have no idea what fucking point you are trying to make.

To remove patents, and intellectual property laws is a completely unrealistic idea. As for removing government regulations that would merely cause the deaths of millions.

[Bendira]

Thats a really ignorant statement, since in our society we have things like patents and intellectual property laws, and government regulations. Where as in a free market none of those things would exist.

I have no idea what fucking point you are trying to make.

To remove patents, and intellectual property laws is a completely unrealistic idea. As for removing government regulations that would merely cause the deaths of millions.

Ok, ill just take your word for it?