Taxation is Coercion

[Bendira]

If the coffee cup is patented and copywrited, which all products sold by WAL-MART would be, I would have no right to distribute it since I didn't own the rights to it.

Neither does Wal-Mart.

No, because Wal-Mart has permission via the manufacturor to carry the product.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

If the coffee cup is patented and copywrited, which all products sold by WAL-MART would be, I would have no right to distribute it since I didn't own the rights to it.

Neither does Wal-Mart.

No, because Wal-Mart has permission via the manufacturor to carry the product.

I don't presume you are going to produce any evidence of anything you say. So let's go to what happens when the big corporation can continue to sell at a 10% loss on every product longer than a competitor can buy them at a 100% loss.

[Bendira]

If the coffee cup is patented and copywrited, which all products sold by WAL-MART would be, I would have no right to distribute it since I didn't own the rights to it.

Neither does Wal-Mart.

No, because Wal-Mart has permission via the manufacturor to carry the product.

I don't presume you are going to produce any evidence of anything you say. So let's go to what happens when the big corporation can continue to sell at a 10% loss on every product longer than a competitor can buy them at a 100% loss.

I would assume everybody would have atleast this fundamental knowledge on how copywrites work. Your 100% loss scenario fails due to the fact that its not likely to be just one competitor. Our hypothetical scenaro is between two identical products, which would imply that there are no copywrite laws in our scenario to begin with. If we wanted to make two similiar but not identical products, this covnersation would then be completely different because of the differences in the products changing the market value. So we would assume that if a competitor feels that this coffee maker is worth copying bolt for bolt, piece for piece, that it is a product that is in high demand. Obviously by lowering prices and making it extremely inexpensive, your also completely destroying the demand for future sales (given the idea that it is an item that most people only buy once every several years, like a coffee maker). So the lack of scarcity after the price war would effectively destroy future sales of the coffee maker. So unless the monopoly is suicidally in a jihad against other competitors, it would be pointless unless they are just plain sadistic and don't care about money. But our hypothetical competitors that exploit the price war by buying the coffee makers from the two warring competitors and storing them would most likely be MANY. There wouldn't be just one, there would be several. Lets assume for the sake of argument they are few though, and lets assume the monopoly wins the price war. Now the item the war was over is practically useless because it has lost its scarcity, all of these competitors are now selling it way below its former price. And you lost a LOT of money over the course of the price war. Basically what this would imply, is that it would be a better decision just to compete with the new coffee maker competitor, than to suicidally destroy the market.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

I would assume everybody would have atleast this fundamental knowledge on how copywrites work.

I have no idea what copywrites are but copyrights generally have to do with the distribution and use of a product that you created.

Your 100% loss scenario fails due to the fact that its not likely to be just one competitor.

So it is MULTIPLE competitors taking 100% loss on every product?

Our hypothetical scenaro is between two identical products, which would imply that there are no copywrite laws in our scenario to begin with.

If they were two identical products, they would already have the right to sell the product if they were a competitor.

If we wanted to make two similiar but not identical products, this covnersation would then be completely different because of the differences in the products changing the market value. So we would assume that if a competitor feels that this coffee maker is worth copying bolt for bolt, piece for piece, that it is a product that is in high demand.

I demand tangents!

*followed by nonsense and tangents*

Success.

[Bendira]

I will be happy to debate the other possible tangents with you, but I have to go to work right now.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

You confused mocking your argument with interest in further irrelevant rambling.

[Lyserl]

Well, since everybody seems to be arguing from their deepest-held ideals...

I don't see why people give a shit about taxes being coercive. I do not see why coercion means that it's theft, or that people have some claim to the money they "lose" (more like never have in the first place, amirite?). It's not like the average person is actually capable of being intelligent with how they use their money, so having a portion "removed" from their pay (as it never goes into their hands, they have no real claim to it that cannot be summed up by "BAAAAAW") for the purposes of being used to actually advance humanity. You know, as opposed to playing pointless games with the exchange of said money in the giant circlejerk known as the "free market".

They earned it. They have a claim to it. How they spend it is irrelevant.

How do they have a claim to it? You're just stating these things with no sort of backup. Even in your impractical libertarian fantasy world, you do not have a "right" to the fruits of your labor, just what your employer deigns to give you.

It's what you the employer and employee agree to. You have every right to it.

Where do you get these "rights" from? You aren't the one who decides what "rights" you have, it's the people in power. And you should be fucking gracious that you live in a liberal democracy where you get more than most every other person in the world, because right now you're acting like a spoiled brat who isn't content with everything mama and poppa give you, and can't take the fact that they occasionally ask you to do things in return.

[Flammable Ice]

So yes, anybody that has opened this is already steaming. But I want to ask a simple question here. How is taxation not theft? You are forced to pay, and if you refuse you are imprisoned. I can understand if you think taxation is a necessary evil, but denying that it is theft outright seems completely rediculous to me.

That people actually write "rediculous" seems ridiculous to me.

[Dyakovo]

Civil Society /= Government. All of your above statements are based on the assumption that you need a government for a civil society, which I believe has been disproven throughout history.

You are welcome to point said times out.

Iceland, Early American Settlers, American West.

Early American Settlers: There was government.
American West: There was government.
Iceland: When? And source for there being no government?

[JJ Place]

is anyone going to point out that you only pay taxes if you earn an income. you could avoid paying any income tax if you don't earn an iiiiinnnnnnnnnccccccooooooommmmmmmeeeeee rent a plot of land and farm it, work on someone else's land in exchange for room and board(i'm sure there are some cotton farmers in the south that would looove that arrangement) move to the woods and eat sticks and worm, i don't care and neither will the gov if you don't have any income or assets. there, a way to not pay taxes without leaving the country

Still get to pay renter's tax, and you still have to pay taxes on every trade, and you still have to pay money on the land if you buy it, and you still have to pay a number of other excess taxes; second, the goods that you produce are still up for taxes, as it can be justified that you still have to pay 'income tax' as your still making something, gaining resources; even if it's not money, resources can have counted as Income, more things can be taxed under income tax than just money, which is representation of resources. For thousands of years, governments have imposed taxation on income, even before currency in many parts of the world.

The argument that 'if you don't like it, you can just leave' has been a good one; not even in cases in which a group 'can' justify their right to say that, it definitely is not a good argument for if a group 'should'; and in the case where the answer to 'can' is no, the reasoning for 'should' is demolished even further.

[New Heliopolis]

is anyone going to point out that you only pay taxes if you earn an income. you could avoid paying any income tax if you don't earn an iiiiinnnnnnnnnccccccooooooommmmmmmeeeeee rent a plot of land and farm it, work on someone else's land in exchange for room and board(i'm sure there are some cotton farmers in the south that would looove that arrangement) move to the woods and eat sticks and worm, i don't care and neither will the gov if you don't have any income or assets. there, a way to not pay taxes without leaving the country

Still get to pay renter's tax, and you still have to pay taxes on every trade, and you still have to pay money on the land if you buy it, and you still have to pay a number of other excess taxes; second, the goods that you produce are still up for taxes, as it can be justified that you still have to pay 'income tax' as your still making something, gaining resources; even if it's not money, resources can have counted as Income, more things can be taxed under income tax than just money, which is representation of resources. For thousands of years, governments have imposed taxation on income, even before currency in many parts of the world.

The argument that 'if you don't like it, you can just leave' has been a good one; not even in cases in which a group 'can' justify their right to say that, it definitely is not a good argument for if a group 'should'; and in the case where the answer to 'can' is no, the reasoning for 'should' is demolished even further.

Yes, but that's at least one thing (and a very important one) that legitimately can be taxed. I don't support taxing anything other than currency in most cases, but some forms of taxation are justified.

[Sibirsky]

There are certain things that cannot be bought with private money alone (roads, space programs, defense programs) In addition, there are things which aren't necessarily profitable but may benefit another company or program (for example, the widgets of Company A might not make a lot of money but may be necessary for Company B).

Roads and defense programs can easily be funded with private money. Space exploration is being driven by the private industry right now. Company B will pay Company A for their widgets.

[Obama Mania]

*strides in*

I lord obama say taxation is awesome

[Lelouche]

This thread again

Taxations are coercion to pay the government, as enforced by the state's monopoly on force, (and violence)

You can argue the need for taxes
You cannot argue the morality of forced coercion

[Sibirsky]

Well, since everybody seems to be arguing from their deepest-held ideals...

I don't see why people give a shit about taxes being coercive. I do not see why coercion means that it's theft, or that people have some claim to the money they "lose" (more like never have in the first place, amirite?). It's not like the average person is actually capable of being intelligent with how they use their money, so having a portion "removed" from their pay (as it never goes into their hands, they have no real claim to it that cannot be summed up by "BAAAAAW") for the purposes of being used to actually advance humanity. You know, as opposed to playing pointless games with the exchange of said money in the giant circlejerk known as the "free market".

They earned it. They have a claim to it. How they spend it is irrelevant.

How do they have a claim to it? You're just stating these things with no sort of backup. Even in your impractical libertarian fantasy world, you do not have a "right" to the fruits of your labor, just what your employer deigns to give you.

It's what you the employer and employee agree to. You have every right to it.

Where do you get these "rights" from? You aren't the one who decides what "rights" you have, it's the people in power. And you should be fucking gracious that you live in a liberal democracy where you get more than most every other person in the world, because right now you're acting like a spoiled brat who isn't content with everything mama and poppa give you, and can't take the fact that they occasionally ask you to do things in return.

I am gracious that I live in a largely capitalist society because that is what gives me a higher standard of living than most of the world. I work for everything I have. I suspect most of the people spouting their unconditional love for the state are the ones holding their hand out.

[Rolling squid]

This thread again

Taxations are coercion to pay the government, as enforced by the state's monopoly on force, (and violence)

You can argue the need for taxes
You cannot argue the morality of forced coercion

Wrong. Taxes are what you pay for being allowed to live in society, to enjoy protection under the law, the use of courts, roads, public infrastructure, public schools, and safety nets.

[Zephie]

This thread again

Taxations are coercion to pay the government, as enforced by the state's monopoly on force, (and violence)

You can argue the need for taxes
You cannot argue the morality of forced coercion

Wrong. Taxes are what you pay for being allowed to live in society, to enjoy protection under the law, the use of courts, roads, public infrastructure, public schools, and safety nets.

the tax that always bothered me the most is property tax. I mean, if you're paying property tax, who really owns your home? What happens if you don't pay the property tax? Do they take your home? I don't see how you can own your land if you have to pay the government rent. Just saying.

[The Black Forrest]

I suspect most of the people spouting their unconditional love for the state are the ones holding their hand out.

You mean like business leaders?

[DaWoad]

I suspect most of the people spouting their unconditional love for the state are the ones holding their hand out.

You mean like business leaders?

and academics and scientists?

[The Black Forrest]

This thread again

Taxations are coercion to pay the government, as enforced by the state's monopoly on force, (and violence)

You can argue the need for taxes
You cannot argue the morality of forced coercion

Wrong. Taxes are what you pay for being allowed to live in society, to enjoy protection under the law, the use of courts, roads, public infrastructure, public schools, and safety nets.

the tax that always bothered me the most is property tax. I mean, if you're paying property tax, who really owns your home? What happens if you don't pay the property tax? Do they take your home? I don't see how you can own your land if you have to pay the government rent. Just saying.

You don't really own your land......

[Lelouche]

Well, since everybody seems to be arguing from their deepest-held ideals...

I don't see why people give a shit about taxes being coercive. I do not see why coercion means that it's theft, or that people have some claim to the money they "lose" (more like never have in the first place, amirite?). It's not like the average person is actually capable of being intelligent with how they use their money, so having a portion "removed" from their pay (as it never goes into their hands, they have no real claim to it that cannot be summed up by "BAAAAAW") for the purposes of being used to actually advance humanity. You know, as opposed to playing pointless games with the exchange of said money in the giant circlejerk known as the "free market".

They earned it. They have a claim to it. How they spend it is irrelevant.

How do they have a claim to it? You're just stating these things with no sort of backup. Even in your impractical libertarian fantasy world, you do not have a "right" to the fruits of your labor, just what your employer deigns to give you.

It's what you the employer and employee agree to. You have every right to it.

Where do you get these "rights" from? You aren't the one who decides what "rights" you have, it's the people in power. And you should be fucking gracious that you live in a liberal democracy where you get more than most every other person in the world, because right now you're acting like a spoiled brat who isn't content with everything mama and poppa give you, and can't take the fact that they occasionally ask you to do things in return.

I am gracious that I live in a largely capitalist society because that is what gives me a higher standard of living than most of the world. I work for everything I have. I suspect most of the people spouting their unconditional love for the state are the ones holding their hand out.

Burn,
Did he really equate "State" to "Momma and Poppa", and people not wanting to pay the state, for services they never request, in a society they never asked to be born in as "Ungrateful Children" ?
State has no right to demand anything of anyone, for any reason

It's only in the brainwashed mind's of statists, that such a situation becomes acceptable

[Sibirsky]

This thread again

Taxations are coercion to pay the government, as enforced by the state's monopoly on force, (and violence)

You can argue the need for taxes
You cannot argue the morality of forced coercion

Wrong. Taxes are what you pay for being allowed to live in society, to enjoy protection under the law, the use of courts, roads, public infrastructure, public schools, and safety nets.

You argued the need, not morality.

[Middle of somewhere]

Taxation isn't a theft since when you live in a country you know that you have to pay taxes, you could easily move out. It is your fault for living in that country.




EDIT: After thinking about i came to the conclusion it's theft.

[Lelouche]

This thread again

Taxations are coercion to pay the government, as enforced by the state's monopoly on force, (and violence)

You can argue the need for taxes
You cannot argue the morality of forced coercion

Wrong. Taxes are what you pay for being allowed to live in society, to enjoy protection under the law, the use of courts, roads, public infrastructure, public schools, and safety nets.

Then we should execute people who refuse to pay taxes
/sarcasm

Simply because that is what we do, does not make it right
regardless of your circular assumption
I never requested the services government currently provides, I never agreed to pay for those services
Indeed I never asked to be born into this society, I was not given a choice
It's coercion, pure and simple, and the morality of coercion cannot be argued

[Sibirsky]

This thread again

Taxations are coercion to pay the government, as enforced by the state's monopoly on force, (and violence)

You can argue the need for taxes
You cannot argue the morality of forced coercion

Wrong. Taxes are what you pay for being allowed to live in society, to enjoy protection under the law, the use of courts, roads, public infrastructure, public schools, and safety nets.

the tax that always bothered me the most is property tax. I mean, if you're paying property tax, who really owns your home? What happens if you don't pay the property tax? Do they take your home? I don't see how you can own your land if you have to pay the government rent. Just saying.

Yes, don't pay taxes and the county puts a lien on your home. It is the first lien, above the first mortgage (if you have one). Typically, before foreclosure the bank will pay the taxes. They don't want to lose their investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a few grand. If you have no mortgage, the lien is sold to an investor. He basically pays the taxes for you. You then have an option to pay the taxes with a penalty and interest. That is the investor's profit. If you don't, the investor can foreclose on your home.