Taxation is Coercion

[Bendira]

DaWoad, there is not threat of violence for not paying for a mortgage. It is not coercive. You made a choice to finance a house. It is nothing like taxes.

sure there is, don't pay your mortgage and you'll be violently expelled and, depending on country and situation, possibly jailed and (this has already been said) if you inherit your parents house you didn't chose to finance it your parents did (just like you didn't chose to be born in your country your parents did). It's everything like taxes.

(man all the liberalists are on tonight *grins* you, JJ, Lelouch and bendira all in one thread! I'm kinda flattered)

Liberalists?

Refuse the inheritance. Sell the house. It's not the same. You make a choice of going into a restaurant and ordering food. There is nothing similar at all to taxation.

refuse to pay taxes, leave the country. The food analogy is a bad one which is why I used it only in relation to a single other point. You did, though, make a choice to work in the country in which you work and therefor pay taxes.

That's enough. No rational person is going to compare leaving a country as choosing another restaurant. Most people do not make a choice of what country to work in. Your argument is absolutely ridiculous.

Every person makes a choice of what country to work in. Usually it's "the one I was born in" and it's not a conscious esion but that doesn't change the fact that it's a choice. And yes, I a rational (well at least I think I'm rational) person, have compared a very specific aspect of choosing another restaurant to a very specific aspect of choosing another country. I'm not claiming it's identical I am claiming that it's a matter of scale rather than type and that because one would not call paying for food coercive, calling paying for enjoying the benefits of working in a certain society coercive is ridiculous. My argument though better with mortgage due to it being loser in scale, is anything but ridiculous.

I think it is pointless to continue arguing this with you. Every point you continue to make has been disproven.

[DaWoad]

If I said "you must give me money to live on land you own, to enter into a contract with another person, to allow you to make money, to not go to a prison cell, or to not die, oh but don't worry I promise to protect you." that would be constituted as extortion or theft. There is absolutely no reason anyone should get away with it just because they are a collective unit like a gang, government, or corporation.

If you said "pay me to live on land I protect and to enjoy services I provide or don't but then you can't work here" that would not be considered extortion.

That's just the same thing with a bit of sugar on top. It equals a nanny state either way, no different from a fief, a mob-controlled bar in Chicago, or a kolkhoz in the USSR.

how is that true at all? A mob-contolled bar maybe in that you don't have to go to that bar, but then there's no coercion involved and it's exactly the same as a regular bar. In the other two cases you can't walk away . . .which was rather the point of the last few pages. If you wouldn't mind reading the last couple of pages that would be wonderful, I'd prefer not to repeat myself if I don't absolutely have to.

[DaWoad]

DaWoad, there is not threat of violence for not paying for a mortgage. It is not coercive. You made a choice to finance a house. It is nothing like taxes.

sure there is, don't pay your mortgage and you'll be violently expelled and, depending on country and situation, possibly jailed and (this has already been said) if you inherit your parents house you didn't chose to finance it your parents did (just like you didn't chose to be born in your country your parents did). It's everything like taxes.

(man all the liberalists are on tonight *grins* you, JJ, Lelouch and bendira all in one thread! I'm kinda flattered)

Liberalists?

Refuse the inheritance. Sell the house. It's not the same. You make a choice of going into a restaurant and ordering food. There is nothing similar at all to taxation.

refuse to pay taxes, leave the country. The food analogy is a bad one which is why I used it only in relation to a single other point. You did, though, make a choice to work in the country in which you work and therefor pay taxes.

That's enough. No rational person is going to compare leaving a country as choosing another restaurant. Most people do not make a choice of what country to work in. Your argument is absolutely ridiculous.

Every person makes a choice of what country to work in. Usually it's "the one I was born in" and it's not a conscious esion but that doesn't change the fact that it's a choice. And yes, I a rational (well at least I think I'm rational) person, have compared a very specific aspect of choosing another restaurant to a very specific aspect of choosing another country. I'm not claiming it's identical I am claiming that it's a matter of scale rather than type and that because one would not call paying for food coercive, calling paying for enjoying the benefits of working in a certain society coercive is ridiculous. My argument though better with mortgage due to it being loser in scale, is anything but ridiculous.

I think it is pointless to continue arguing this with you. Every point you continue to make has been disproven.

oh really? could you point to an argument of mine, in this thread of course, that has been disproven? Or, in fact, any argument that you've made about taxation that would not apply to a mortgage on a house that you inherit from your parents. (speaking of, the inherit point is only to cover the "you don't chose to work here argument" which is also covered by "you do chose to work here when you . . .you know. . .choose to get a job. . .here")

EDIT: but hey, it's your choice. I'm not forcing you to argue you can always go somewhere else (thus not coercion) or argue with someone else (thus not coercion) heh heh heh

[Sibirsky]

DaWoad, there is not threat of violence for not paying for a mortgage. It is not coercive. You made a choice to finance a house. It is nothing like taxes.

sure there is, don't pay your mortgage and you'll be violently expelled and, depending on country and situation, possibly jailed and (this has already been said) if you inherit your parents house you didn't chose to finance it your parents did (just like you didn't chose to be born in your country your parents did). It's everything like taxes.

(man all the liberalists are on tonight *grins* you, JJ, Lelouch and bendira all in one thread! I'm kinda flattered)

Liberalists?

Refuse the inheritance. Sell the house. It's not the same. You make a choice of going into a restaurant and ordering food. There is nothing similar at all to taxation.

refuse to pay taxes, leave the country. The food analogy is a bad one which is why I used it only in relation to a single other point. You did, though, make a choice to work in the country in which you work and therefor pay taxes.

That's enough. No rational person is going to compare leaving a country as choosing another restaurant. Most people do not make a choice of what country to work in. Your argument is absolutely ridiculous.

Every person makes a choice of what country to work in. Usually it's "the one I was born in" and it's not a conscious esion but that doesn't change the fact that it's a choice. And yes, I a rational (well at least I think I'm rational) person, have compared a very specific aspect of choosing another restaurant to a very specific aspect of choosing another country. I'm not claiming it's identical I am claiming that it's a matter of scale rather than type and that because one would not call paying for food coercive, calling paying for enjoying the benefits of working in a certain society coercive is ridiculous. My argument though better with mortgage due to it being loser in scale, is anything but ridiculous.

No, no, and no. Do Mexican citizens have a choice to come to the US to work? A choice they clearly want to make. The legal choice is, if they have a US citizen sibling, to wait for 131 years after they apply. That is not a choice. You continue being irrational and ridiculous.

[The Adrian Empire]

DaWoad, there is not threat of violence for not paying for a mortgage. It is not coercive. You made a choice to finance a house. It is nothing like taxes.

sure there is, don't pay your mortgage and you'll be violently expelled and, depending on country and situation, possibly jailed and (this has already been said) if you inherit your parents house you didn't chose to finance it your parents did (just like you didn't chose to be born in your country your parents did). It's everything like taxes.

(man all the liberalists are on tonight *grins* you, JJ, Lelouch and bendira all in one thread! I'm kinda flattered)

I honestly don't know enough about mortgages, as I have said several times on this thread, to have total confidence in debating whether they are coercive or not. But my understanding is, you can walk away from it at any time. The only time you would be violently expelled is if you are squating on the property after it no logner belongs to you, in which case you are violating somebody else's property rights.

If you refused to pay your house would be repossessed and you would lose alot of good credit and might face jail time depending on where you live.

When you mortgage a house you do not own it, the bank owns it, and it does until you pay the total cost of the house, when they expel you they are expelling you from their house and their property. It only becomes your property after you have paid them in full, after which time the bank cannot remove you from your house for any reason. Were their no taxes applied to you from that point on, you would be free to live according your will on your property with no force having any legitimate cause to remove you, you could just as easily then set up your own little community on said property, and never pay another cent to anyone against your will ever.

However in a place with property tax, you never own your land, because there is never any point in which the state cannot remove you from "it's property" for failure to pay what is tantamount to rent. You must continue to pay or otherwise be made homeless. You could not simply shut yourself off from the world, because eventually you will have the state knocking on the door asking you to leave "their" property

sure, you're paying the bank for a service as you are paying society for a service. The second you feel you no longer need that service (build sufficient capital to pay off the bank, build sufficient capital to buy your own country) you can cease to pay for it.

What the hell did you even read the second paragraph? I already answered this.

Fine, I'll reiterate. In the first scenario, once the bank has been paid off and you own your own land, you no longer are required to pay anyone anything, though this example is extreme you could simply build your own community on said piece of land cutting off all outside communication. Your property is your own and no one has the legitimate authority to remove you.

In the second scenario, there is no point in which the land you are currently living on will ever become your own, because you are renting it eternally from the government, by their levying taxes. Were you to build your own self-sufficient community on that piece of land and cut off all communication with the state, they would still demand payment and should you fail to pay they would remove your person from said property.

[Sibirsky]

DaWoad, there is not threat of violence for not paying for a mortgage. It is not coercive. You made a choice to finance a house. It is nothing like taxes.

sure there is, don't pay your mortgage and you'll be violently expelled and, depending on country and situation, possibly jailed and (this has already been said) if you inherit your parents house you didn't chose to finance it your parents did (just like you didn't chose to be born in your country your parents did). It's everything like taxes.

(man all the liberalists are on tonight *grins* you, JJ, Lelouch and bendira all in one thread! I'm kinda flattered)

Liberalists?

Refuse the inheritance. Sell the house. It's not the same. You make a choice of going into a restaurant and ordering food. There is nothing similar at all to taxation.

refuse to pay taxes, leave the country. The food analogy is a bad one which is why I used it only in relation to a single other point. You did, though, make a choice to work in the country in which you work and therefor pay taxes.

That's enough. No rational person is going to compare leaving a country as choosing another restaurant. Most people do not make a choice of what country to work in. Your argument is absolutely ridiculous.

Every person makes a choice of what country to work in. Usually it's "the one I was born in" and it's not a conscious esion but that doesn't change the fact that it's a choice. And yes, I a rational (well at least I think I'm rational) person, have compared a very specific aspect of choosing another restaurant to a very specific aspect of choosing another country. I'm not claiming it's identical I am claiming that it's a matter of scale rather than type and that because one would not call paying for food coercive, calling paying for enjoying the benefits of working in a certain society coercive is ridiculous. My argument though better with mortgage due to it being loser in scale, is anything but ridiculous.

I think it is pointless to continue arguing this with you. Every point you continue to make has been disproven.

oh really? could you point to an argument of mine, in this thread of course, that has been disproven? Or, in fact, any argument that you've made about taxation that would not apply to a mortgage on a house that you inherit from your parents. (speaking of, the inherit point is only to cover the "you don't chose to work here argument" which is also covered by "you do chose to work here when you . . .you know. . .choose to get a job. . .here")

EDIT: but hey, it's your choice. I'm not forcing you to argue you can always go somewhere else (thus not coercion) or argue with someone else (thus not coercion) heh heh heh

The fucking restaurant. The mortgage. EVERY point.

[Patriqvinia]

If I said "you must give me money to live on land you own, to enter into a contract with another person, to allow you to make money, to not go to a prison cell, or to not die, oh but don't worry I promise to protect you." that would be constituted as extortion or theft. There is absolutely no reason anyone should get away with it just because they are a collective unit like a gang, government, or corporation.

If you said "pay me to live on land I protect and to enjoy services I provide or don't but then you can't work here" that would not be considered extortion.

That's just the same thing with a bit of sugar on top. It equals a nanny state either way, no different from a fief, a mob-controlled bar in Chicago, or a kolkhoz in the USSR.

how is that true at all? A mob-contolled bar maybe in that you don't have to go to that bar, but then there's no coercion involved and it's exactly the same as a regular bar. In the other two cases you can't walk away . . .which was rather the point of the last few pages. If you wouldn't mind reading the last couple of pages that would be wonderful, I'd prefer not to repeat myself if I don't absolutely have to.

Actually all of those examples were meant to be viewed from the first person (bar owner, peasant receiving "services" [being allowed to live apparently counts as one] on a fief or kolkhoz). Being allowed to leave your state (country, town) isn't really the point because people have fought wars (lots and lots!) against this "privilege of leaving your country." Why? They don't want to; because it's their land, their family, and their right.

[Lelouche]

I think it is pointless to continue arguing this with you. Every point you continue to make has been disproven.

oh really? could you point to an argument of mine, in this thread of course, that has been disproven? Or, in fact, any argument that you've made about taxation that would not apply to a mortgage on a house that you inherit from your parents. (speaking of, the inherit point is only to cover the "you don't chose to work here argument" which is also covered by "you do chose to work here when you . . .you know. . .choose to get a job. . .here")

EDIT: but hey, it's your choice. I'm not forcing you to argue you can always go somewhere else (thus not coercion) or argue with someone else (thus not coercion) heh heh heh

The fucking restaurant. The mortgage. EVERY point.

Good luck having him see that
Selective reasoning (coupled with cognitive dissonance) is a powerful tool for the willfully ignorant
That is not a personal attack
It's an observation of fact.

[The Adrian Empire]

DaWoad, what you have accomplished here is simply the creation of an over-complicated model of an argument that I am sure you would consider above your calibre, that is "The Libertards who don't like to pay taxes should go live in a forest" argument. Libertarians may be living in a society which has taxation but taxation is not all and alone what built it, we live in a world with little room for us, there are no free lands left to claim, perhaps one day it may be a simple argument of go live on moon base 9, or what have you, but as the current situation gives us no options to live according to our ideals that do not include the forceful invasion of some nation.

[The Cat-Tribe]

If you don't understand after it has been explained ad naseum how neither the legal nor ethical definitions of "theft" cannot possibly apply to government taxing property that you "own" through, by, and with government support, recognition, or protection, then you either never will or are being deliberately obtuse.

I will repost something from the last thread to which no one replied:

I've already addressed this topic more than it is worth, but I came across some food for thought.

From Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter II, Part II (1776):

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." --Reportedly said by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in a speech in 1904. See also Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1927) (Holmes, J., dissenting) ("Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, including the chance to insure."). The first variation is quoted by the IRS above the entrance to their headquarters at 1111 Constitution Avenue.

"Here, on the contrary, the incidence of the tax as well as its measure is tied to the earnings which the State of Wisconsin has made possible, insofar as government is the prerequisite for the fruits of civilization for which, as Mr. Justice Holmes was fond of saying, we pay taxes." -- Wisconsin v. JC Penney Co., 311 US 435, 446 (1940)

"[A]n expenditure made for Federal income taxes is not an expenditure made in consideration of any specific property or service received by the taxpayer. The payment of Federal income taxes is a civic duty, not a matter of business contract or investment advantage. All taxpayers, as well as others (citizens and noncitizens) receive benefits on account of the funding of the Federal Government." --Redlark v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 31, 71-72 (1996) (Halpern, J., dissenting).

The opinion of certain persons, even those of political philosopher's I deeply admire such as Adam Smith's are just that opinions, and do not set in stone the legitimacy of taxation, least of all when the one's legitimizing it are the same who create and enforce them.

I don't personally view all taxation as inherently theft, though some do indeed take characteristics of them. Sales, duty and income tax would be a short list of three taxes I can see legitimacy in, if I do believe that they are not necessarily good to levy upon a nation. However I do oppose taxation which occurs statically, taxes which are applied regardless of one's actions, which I consider theft, such taxes as Head, Estate and Property, taxes which if left unpaid will result in the confiscation of property, are essentially acts of theft. When the taxes are applied as if a service fee in the case of my first three examples it gains legitimacy if only a shred in my eyes (particularly the latter), but one cannot technically fail to pay their income tax since it deducted from their income. With sales tax it is added automatically to one's purchase price, in these cases the only way the state can take your property is if you've committed a fraud. I still disagree with them as they are non-voluntary and thus can never be legitimate in my eyes, but at the very least they cannot be used to simply take one's previously owned property.

Of course something "X" is not true simply because someone persuasive or authoritative or important said it.

But "I disagree" isn't a response.

Why is Adam Smith wrong?

Why are Justice Holmes and SCOTUS and Judge Halpern wrong?

[The Cat-Tribe]

*snip*

If you don't understand after it has been explained ad naseum how neither the legal nor ethical definitions of "theft" cannot possibly apply to government taxing property that you "own" through, by, and with government support, recognition, or protection, then you either never will or are being deliberately obtuse.

I will repost something from the last thread to which no one replied:

I've already addressed this topic more than it is worth, but I came across some food for thought.

From Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter II, Part II (1776):

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." --Reportedly said by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in a speech in 1904. See also Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1927) (Holmes, J., dissenting) ("Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, including the chance to insure."). The first variation is quoted by the IRS above the entrance to their headquarters at 1111 Constitution Avenue.

"Here, on the contrary, the incidence of the tax as well as its measure is tied to the earnings which the State of Wisconsin has made possible, insofar as government is the prerequisite for the fruits of civilization for which, as Mr. Justice Holmes was fond of saying, we pay taxes." -- Wisconsin v. JC Penney Co., 311 US 435, 446 (1940)

"[A]n expenditure made for Federal income taxes is not an expenditure made in consideration of any specific property or service received by the taxpayer. The payment of Federal income taxes is a civic duty, not a matter of business contract or investment advantage. All taxpayers, as well as others (citizens and noncitizens) receive benefits on account of the funding of the Federal Government." --Redlark v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 31, 71-72 (1996) (Halpern, J., dissenting).

If you agree that the government can do no harm, you have to say that Hitler was completely justified in all of his actions while the Dictator of Germany.

Sure. That is clearly what I said -- almost word for word. I clearly believe that every "government" or "power" that has ever been used throughout history has been essentially the same, 100% legitimate, and unquestionable. Nothing any government ever has or will do should ever be questioned. Glad you made that clear for those who may have missed it in my post.

EDIT: And Adam Smith, John Locke, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and all past and current members of SCOTUS feel or felt exactly the same.

You say the government defines theft, and defines the taxation as not being a crime, correct?

"What we've got here is failure to communicate."

Where did I say anything even resembling that in my post?

How is that responsive to the points I did actually make in my post?

Are you so caught up repeating mantras that you can't think of anything else?

Cat, I get really annoyed when people quote Adam Smith and think that it is the end all be all of the argument. It is true that Adam Smith was one of the many "founding fathers" of capitalism, but the word capitalism does not need to be directly associated with him. Just as I could talk about Transcendentalism seperate from Emerson or Thoureau as a phenomenon, and not in reference to Emerson or Thoreau's works specifically.

You are correct that Theft technically is a legal term that the government defines. So technically, if you want to argue semantics, you are absolutely correct that taxation is not theft. This is something that I have realized from this debate. However, taxation is theft without the legal connotation. If I want to reword it and skip the semantic arguments, I would say that taxation is violent coersion.

The idea that I have to accept the institutions the government provides is ridiculous, especially since I don't use many of them, or I feel that a hypothetical privatization of the service would result in a better outcome. For instance, I walk to work and walk to most places around town. Yet my taxes go to pay for maintenance of the roads. Another example is when the police arrest me for a law I don't agree with. I pay for this mans salary, and I have no choice but to pay him, and if I break a law that is supposibly mandated by society, I have my liberty taken away and I am thrown in jail.

I get really annoyed when someone's position is so intellectual bankrupt that they can only defend it by (1) ignoring actual counter-arguments, (2) attack strawmen instead, and (3) resort (however mildly) to personal attacks on opponents.

1. I never said, implied, etc., that Adam Smith's view on the matter ended all discussion. I merely said it was "food for thought." One strawman down.

2. I did not make the "legal" or "semantic" argument to which you object. You are correct that you would lose by either standard and your choice of the word "theft" is deliberately deceptive hyperbole, but, AS I SAID ORIGINALLY, your ethical argument is also without merit. Another strawman down.

3. There are many reasons why your final argument is wrong, beyond it also being essentially an attack on a strawman. Unless you can make a convincing ethical AND realistic argument that (1) there should be no government or (2) what government should or must exist can be wholly funded without any form of taxation, it is irrelevant that you may object to or reject some things on which a government would spend some tax money.

4. There more important point that you and your fellow chanters of "taxation is theft" need to and never answer, however: (1) given that John Locke, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and even Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek all recognize at least some taxation as being legitimate (and, for some, even necessary to a capitalistic system) on what philosophical basis do you assert "taxation is theft," and (2) how does one obtain "ownership" of the "property" that is allegedly being stolen from one by taxation without the assistance of any social contract or government?

I won't be holding my breath, but won't one of you at least try to answer the two points raised above?

[DaWoad]

First, Mortgage, Nobody dies from not paying, nobody is imprisoned, you are exiled from the house, but not immediately to another house, your analogy fails, you fail

Second, no it's not, it's a matter of civil law, and if you don't pay for food, they don't give you food, that's not violence by any measure..

I have refuted your argument, These situations don't bear any resemblance to tax

first, sure they do. Have you not seen the statics on deaths of homeless people?
Depends on where you are on the imprisonment thing, and when you are exiled from your house you are either exiled to another house or to the street . . .your choice really.

I don't understand what you mean by "it's a matter of civil law" you've lost me there, sorry.
And if they give you food which you then refuse to pay for you will be jailed for theft which, according to you at least, is violent. If you chose not to buy food you will starve, if you chose to go elsewhere to buy your food you can also choose to go elsewhere to work.

first, Homeless people are killed by elements, and their lack of ability to rent, or purchase housing, this is not a result of defaulting on their mortgage.

er, if you're homeless because you defaulted on your mortgage and you die because you're homeless have you not died because you defaulted on your mortgage?

You ultimately make a choice about where you are gonna live if you choose not to pay the mortgage, that you consented to.

as you ultimately make the choice about which country you work in. And, for the purpose of the "consented" section of this argument you inherited the house from your parents when they died.

This has no resemblance to Taxes, and is not violent coercion

it has every resemblance to taxes and is not violent coercion

Second, any place that still has "Debtor prisons" is well.... wrong, that is coercion by force.

pay for what you buy or go to jail is. . .coercion? So theft is cool?

As for the restaurant analogy, you made the choice to order food

you made the choice to work in the country in which you work. you could not work and starve to death (metaphorically and/or literally) just as I could not order food and starve to death.

As for taxes, you did not make the choice to receive services, they were provided regardless of your want's and choice in the matter.

Sure you did, by choosing to work in that country you are choosing to pay taxes for the services offered in that country. Just like by choosing to eat at restaurant A you are choosing to receive their services some of which you want some of which you don't all of which you have to pay for.

It would be as if I ordered the steak and their most expensive wine, and charged it to your table, when you were brought into the restaurant at gunpoint, and ordered nothing.

nooo it would be if we both came to the restaurant, we both ordered food and you used the bathroom while i did not yet we both pay (through the profit the restaurant makes off it's food) for the upkeep of said bathroom.
(a gunpoint implies the government forcing me to work in this conutry which is not the case, the you ordering expensive food that I pay for suggests that some people in society pay for nothing and get the best of everything which is not the case, and the idea that I ordered nothing suggests that it is possible to work in a society without enjoying the benefits of that society which is not the case)

Going elsewhere to work is so problematic that it is not a realistic option by any measure

going elsewhere to eat or going to another house to live may well be so problematic that it is not a realistic option by any measure. Which does not make the charging of you for food or the mortgage coercive

Again, none of these situations you bring bear any resemblance to tax, bar the most extreme cognitive dissonance I have ever seen displayed on nationstates.

hey now I like my cognitive dissonance! And I've explained exactly in which particulars they bare(?) resemblance to tax. And I'm fairly sure you understand the point that I'm making and that it's not, infact, cognitive dissonance.

[DaWoad]

DaWoad, what you have accomplished here is simply the creation of an over-complicated model of an argument that I am sure you would consider above your calibre, that is "The Libertards who don't like to pay taxes should go live in a forest" argument. Libertarians may be living in a society which has taxation but taxation is not all and alone what built it, we live in a world with little room for us, there are no free lands left to claim, perhaps one day it may be a simple argument of go live on moon base 9, or what have you, but as the current situation gives us no options to live according to our ideals that do not include the forceful invasion of some nation.

Which, IMO, is extremely unfortunate (ie. sucks . . .hard). I just don't believe that because that is the case, and it is terrible that it is the case, government taxation is equal to theft. I do believe that a government that did not allow one to leave and taxed them would be theft. I do believe that the system of taxation in the USSR was theft as is that of North Korea or any other nation of that brand. I simply do not believe that a nation where the choice to not use the services and therefore not pay for them is offered, can be considered to be perpetrating "theft" (leaving aside the semantics).

[DaWoad]

I think it is pointless to continue arguing this with you. Every point you continue to make has been disproven.

oh really? could you point to an argument of mine, in this thread of course, that has been disproven? Or, in fact, any argument that you've made about taxation that would not apply to a mortgage on a house that you inherit from your parents. (speaking of, the inherit point is only to cover the "you don't chose to work here argument" which is also covered by "you do chose to work here when you . . .you know. . .choose to get a job. . .here")

EDIT: but hey, it's your choice. I'm not forcing you to argue you can always go somewhere else (thus not coercion) or argue with someone else (thus not coercion) heh heh heh

The fucking restaurant. The mortgage. EVERY point.

Good luck having him see that
Selective reasoning (coupled with cognitive dissonance) is a powerful tool for the willfully ignorant
That is not a personal attack
It's an observation of fact.

sure I just don't agree that I'm the one being willfully ignorant or using selective reasoning *grins* I think that that would be you and the around 20% ish of people who voted that taxation was theft.

[Lelouche]

I think it is pointless to continue arguing this with you. Every point you continue to make has been disproven.

oh really? could you point to an argument of mine, in this thread of course, that has been disproven? Or, in fact, any argument that you've made about taxation that would not apply to a mortgage on a house that you inherit from your parents. (speaking of, the inherit point is only to cover the "you don't chose to work here argument" which is also covered by "you do chose to work here when you . . .you know. . .choose to get a job. . .here")

EDIT: but hey, it's your choice. I'm not forcing you to argue you can always go somewhere else (thus not coercion) or argue with someone else (thus not coercion) heh heh heh

The fucking restaurant. The mortgage. EVERY point.

Good luck having him see that
Selective reasoning (coupled with cognitive dissonance) is a powerful tool for the willfully ignorant
That is not a personal attack
It's an observation of fact.

sure I just don't agree that I'm the one being willfully ignorant or using selective reasoning *grins* I think that that would be you and the around 20% ish of people who voted that taxation was theft.

You not agreeing is not a problem, you have proven that you are correct, and always will be, regardless of logic, or lack of logic

[The Cat-Tribe]

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

Tax money isn't someone's rightful thing.

Tell us, why is that, Jello?

Because the social contract says that it isn't.
If you wish to argue that one ought to have the right to not pay taxes, then that's a separate argument. Appealing to rights in making your argument would be circular and therefore pointless, so I'd advise you against it.

Do you honestly think any of this is true, or are you joking with every single point? We've proven the Social Contract is a lie, and the massive problems with the Social Contract, and the reasoning why the Social Contract is never legitimate; and you still stick with it as to never to try to see that your wrong on the subject. If there's one more circular argument on the planet greater and abused more than than the Creationist's Argument about the Bible and God:

*snip*
it's your argument about the Social Contract. Let me question you, if you believe the Social Contract to be a Divine un-written, Holiest Document ever written, let me ask you, where does it originate from?

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

I could deem all of Jello Biafra's funds "tax money" to myself... then he doesn't have a right to it?

If you are the one who enforces the social contract...yes.

Now all we have to do is re-write the 'Social Contract' to state that Jello is now to have all his family killed, his house torched in front of him, he shall be tortured almost to death, and shall remain the sex slave of whomever we choose for all of eternity , all while be forced to be as miserable as possible all the time.

The notion of a contract indicates consent. Of course, most social contracts do not require unanimity, so you could probably get that through without my consent.
Of course, it's doubtful that most people would agree to this, since they could easily be next.

No, you have no consent in the Social Contract; the consent is given by you existing in society. So you've agreed to have all your family killed, your house torched in front of yourself, you shall be tortured almost to death, and shall remain the sex slave of whomever we choose for all of eternity , all while you are being forced to be as miserable as possible all the time. And we have all 'democratically' voted to do all of these things to you, so it's all completely legitimate, correct?

Jello, that doesn't make sense. "Tax money" isn't some magical object that you're paid so you can send it to the government. "Tax money" is 50% of YOUR PROPERTY that the government holds a gun up to your head for.

No, it's the government's property that it collects via legal channels.

Ha!; no, it's not the Mafia's, not by a long-shot.

True. The government is not the mafia.

Noting that, our friend Jello here is an avid supporter of mob rule, even if, say, it involves destroying the environment, I can't see why he'd try to argue that the government is in fact different from the Mafia; perplexing arguments.

No.Theft is taking something from someone that they have a right to. One does not have the right to one's tax money.

Do tell us why people have no right to their rightful things...

Because it's part of being a citizen. You also have the right to work toward changes that would bring the country into line with your vision of how it should work. Are you doing that, or are you just coming here and playing the Internet "You're Not The Boss Of Me" Libertarian Tough Guy?

What?

Why does my being a citizen because I was born in the United States mean that the government has the right to steal my lunch money, and, if I don't pay, shove me in a locker for the rest of my life?

because they give you services, services that they have to pay with tax money. You can, of course, decide not to pay but that means 1 of three things. 1) stop using the services they provide, 2)change the system or 3)Don't pay and accept the consequences

Argument fail on the grounds of a lack of a mutually agreed to transaction.

No, it really doesn't. By living in the society you are agreeing to it.

There is no other choice though.

Move to a deserted island somewhere where there are no other people.

Let me sum up and correct everything in this: You don't give consent by living in society; you where born in society. Neither can you justify any point by saying : "Move to a Desert Island" because I am a Libertarian, and

I must point out that "if you don't like it, then get the fuck out" has never seriously been a good argument.

The only difference between Hyde and myself in this scenario is that I am a Libertarian.

True, it is a bad argument. Kind of like when one complains about one's employer, it's a bad argument to say "you should find another job."

I must have precognition, because I knew I would have to answer this question: Different entirely; while the employer perhaps 'should' not use this as an argument; they can use this argument, as the decision to be employed is a consensual decision; the decision to be governed is not a consensual argument between people and leaders; thus that in and of itself is a reasoning against the argument that "If you don't like the country, you should just leave", while it is a legitimate argument to saying that if you do not like your employment; the fact that business is legitimate and government is not is just the cherry on the top of the cake.

Could you please point out for where and when exactly you (and whomever) proved (1) the Social Contract is a lie, (2) the massive problems with the Social Contract, and (3) why the Social Contract is never legitimate?

Could you also explain your theory of property rights and where they come from and why they should be respected in modern society without reference to or any linkage to social contract theory?

[DaWoad]

DaWoad, there is not threat of violence for not paying for a mortgage. It is not coercive. You made a choice to finance a house. It is nothing like taxes.

sure there is, don't pay your mortgage and you'll be violently expelled and, depending on country and situation, possibly jailed and (this has already been said) if you inherit your parents house you didn't chose to finance it your parents did (just like you didn't chose to be born in your country your parents did). It's everything like taxes.

(man all the liberalists are on tonight *grins* you, JJ, Lelouch and bendira all in one thread! I'm kinda flattered)

Liberalists?

Refuse the inheritance. Sell the house. It's not the same. You make a choice of going into a restaurant and ordering food. There is nothing similar at all to taxation.

refuse to pay taxes, leave the country. The food analogy is a bad one which is why I used it only in relation to a single other point. You did, though, make a choice to work in the country in which you work and therefor pay taxes.

That's enough. No rational person is going to compare leaving a country as choosing another restaurant. Most people do not make a choice of what country to work in. Your argument is absolutely ridiculous.

Every person makes a choice of what country to work in. Usually it's "the one I was born in" and it's not a conscious esion but that doesn't change the fact that it's a choice. And yes, I a rational (well at least I think I'm rational) person, have compared a very specific aspect of choosing another restaurant to a very specific aspect of choosing another country. I'm not claiming it's identical I am claiming that it's a matter of scale rather than type and that because one would not call paying for food coercive, calling paying for enjoying the benefits of working in a certain society coercive is ridiculous. My argument though better with mortgage due to it being loser in scale, is anything but ridiculous.

I think it is pointless to continue arguing this with you. Every point you continue to make has been disproven.

oh really? could you point to an argument of mine, in this thread of course, that has been disproven? Or, in fact, any argument that you've made about taxation that would not apply to a mortgage on a house that you inherit from your parents. (speaking of, the inherit point is only to cover the "you don't chose to work here argument" which is also covered by "you do chose to work here when you . . .you know. . .choose to get a job. . .here")

EDIT: but hey, it's your choice. I'm not forcing you to argue you can always go somewhere else (thus not coercion) or argue with someone else (thus not coercion) heh heh heh

The fucking restaurant. The mortgage. EVERY point.

*grins*
A mortgage isn't coercive because you can sell the house an leave
by the same reasoning:
A Tax isn't coercive because you can chose not to pay for the services there and leave

A mortgage isn't coercive because you chose to buy the house (leaving aside the inherited from your parent's thing which fits better anyway)
by the same reasoning
A Tax isn't coercive because you can chose not to start working in that country

etc.'
I don;t think you've disproved any of my points. (Unless you think pointing out that a mortgage isn't coercive using arguments that also apply to taxation was disproving my points in which case you haven't been reading very closely at all)

[The Adrian Empire]

If you don't understand after it has been explained ad naseum how neither the legal nor ethical definitions of "theft" cannot possibly apply to government taxing property that you "own" through, by, and with government support, recognition, or protection, then you either never will or are being deliberately obtuse.

The opinion of certain persons, even those of political philosopher's I deeply admire such as Adam Smith's are just that opinions, and do not set in stone the legitimacy of taxation, least of all when the one's legitimizing it are the same who create and enforce them.

I don't personally view all taxation as inherently theft, though some do indeed take characteristics of them. Sales, duty and income tax would be a short list of three taxes I can see legitimacy in, if I do believe that they are not necessarily good to levy upon a nation. However I do oppose taxation which occurs statically, taxes which are applied regardless of one's actions, which I consider theft, such taxes as Head, Estate and Property, taxes which if left unpaid will result in the confiscation of property, are essentially acts of theft. When the taxes are applied as if a service fee in the case of my first three examples it gains legitimacy if only a shred in my eyes (particularly the latter), but one cannot technically fail to pay their income tax since it deducted from their income. With sales tax it is added automatically to one's purchase price, in these cases the only way the state can take your property is if you've committed a fraud. I still disagree with them as they are non-voluntary and thus can never be legitimate in my eyes, but at the very least they cannot be used to simply take one's previously owned property.

Of course something "X" is not true simply because someone persuasive or authoritative or important said it.

But "I disagree" isn't a response.

Why is Adam Smith wrong?

Why are Justice Holmes and SCOTUS and Judge Halpern wrong?

My response to your post did however address the question you had, which was why people had chosen to not reply to it, to which I answered, because the reply would only be: "I disagree with their assessments". You did not ask any questions for which people could answer but rather quoted certain people who agreed with you, which does not carry the debate much further.

I believe Adam Smith and SCOTUS were wrong because they believed that paying taxes should be a civic duty, I disagree that such a duty exists, one should pay in taxes only for what one uses, if this were true taxation would be in most cases superfluous to the process since the money could be more efficiently exchanged between private individuals and organizations. Voluntary pooling of wealth in such businesses as health insurance would take the place of paid government support for the impoverished.

There may indeed be problems with that idea. However it does move the discussion forward. With no disrespect to you, I do not feel those quotes did the same or at least to such a degree.

[Sibirsky]

er, if you're homeless because you defaulted on your mortgage and you die because you're homeless have you not died because you defaulted on your mortgage?

You're trying to violate the bank's property rights.

as you ultimately make the choice about which country you work in. And, for the purpose of the "consented" section of this argument you inherited the house from your parents when they died.

Convenient of you to completely ignore this post.

No, no, and no. Do Mexican citizens have a choice to come to the US to work? A choice they clearly want to make. The legal choice is, if they have a US citizen sibling, to wait for 131 years after they apply. That is not a choice. You continue being irrational and ridiculous.

pay for what you buy or go to jail is. . .coercion? So theft is cool?

That's not at all what he said. It's what you've been saying though.

you made the choice to work in the country in which you work. you could not work and starve to death (metaphorically and/or literally) just as I could not order food and starve to death.

Repeating this supposed availability of choice does not magically create this choice. North Koreans are not making a choice to stay there. Most of them anyway. Fuck, some of them end up dieing trying to get into South Korea, China or Russia. With the exception of South Korea, all hell holes. Just lesser hell holes.

Sure you did, by choosing to work in that country you are choosing to pay taxes for the services offered in that country. Just like by choosing to eat at restaurant A you are choosing to receive their services some of which you want some of which you don't all of which you have to pay for.

[DaWoad]

I think it is pointless to continue arguing this with you. Every point you continue to make has been disproven.

oh really? could you point to an argument of mine, in this thread of course, that has been disproven? Or, in fact, any argument that you've made about taxation that would not apply to a mortgage on a house that you inherit from your parents. (speaking of, the inherit point is only to cover the "you don't chose to work here argument" which is also covered by "you do chose to work here when you . . .you know. . .choose to get a job. . .here")

EDIT: but hey, it's your choice. I'm not forcing you to argue you can always go somewhere else (thus not coercion) or argue with someone else (thus not coercion) heh heh heh

The fucking restaurant. The mortgage. EVERY point.

Good luck having him see that
Selective reasoning (coupled with cognitive dissonance) is a powerful tool for the willfully ignorant
That is not a personal attack
It's an observation of fact.

sure I just don't agree that I'm the one being willfully ignorant or using selective reasoning *grins* I think that that would be you and the around 20% ish of people who voted that taxation was theft.

You not agreeing is not a problem, you have proven that you are correct, and always will be, regardless of logic, or lack of logic

I made a logical argument:
given that there is no logical argument for a coercive nature of the systems of taxation that cannot be applied, with equal veracity to a system that is not regarded as being coercive, taxation cannot be claimed to be coercive.
We ran through a bunch of arguments about taxation being coercive with me providing counterexamples from systems not considered to be coercive. Often you provided reasoning about those system which I then applied to taxation with equal "truth value".

So far you have failed to find an example of an argument that proves taxation is coercive that cannot be applied to a system that you would not regard as coercive (mortgage, restaurant, etc.). You have also failed to find a reasoning for these thing not being coercive that cannot be applied to taxation.

ergo

Taxation is not coercive.
See good, logical, sense.

[Sibirsky]

DaWoad, there is not threat of violence for not paying for a mortgage. It is not coercive. You made a choice to finance a house. It is nothing like taxes.

sure there is, don't pay your mortgage and you'll be violently expelled and, depending on country and situation, possibly jailed and (this has already been said) if you inherit your parents house you didn't chose to finance it your parents did (just like you didn't chose to be born in your country your parents did). It's everything like taxes.

(man all the liberalists are on tonight *grins* you, JJ, Lelouch and bendira all in one thread! I'm kinda flattered)

Liberalists?

Refuse the inheritance. Sell the house. It's not the same. You make a choice of going into a restaurant and ordering food. There is nothing similar at all to taxation.

refuse to pay taxes, leave the country. The food analogy is a bad one which is why I used it only in relation to a single other point. You did, though, make a choice to work in the country in which you work and therefor pay taxes.

That's enough. No rational person is going to compare leaving a country as choosing another restaurant. Most people do not make a choice of what country to work in. Your argument is absolutely ridiculous.

Every person makes a choice of what country to work in. Usually it's "the one I was born in" and it's not a conscious esion but that doesn't change the fact that it's a choice. And yes, I a rational (well at least I think I'm rational) person, have compared a very specific aspect of choosing another restaurant to a very specific aspect of choosing another country. I'm not claiming it's identical I am claiming that it's a matter of scale rather than type and that because one would not call paying for food coercive, calling paying for enjoying the benefits of working in a certain society coercive is ridiculous. My argument though better with mortgage due to it being loser in scale, is anything but ridiculous.

I think it is pointless to continue arguing this with you. Every point you continue to make has been disproven.

oh really? could you point to an argument of mine, in this thread of course, that has been disproven? Or, in fact, any argument that you've made about taxation that would not apply to a mortgage on a house that you inherit from your parents. (speaking of, the inherit point is only to cover the "you don't chose to work here argument" which is also covered by "you do chose to work here when you . . .you know. . .choose to get a job. . .here")

EDIT: but hey, it's your choice. I'm not forcing you to argue you can always go somewhere else (thus not coercion) or argue with someone else (thus not coercion) heh heh heh

The fucking restaurant. The mortgage. EVERY point.

*grins*
A mortgage isn't coercive because you can sell the house an leave
by the same reasoning:
A Tax isn't coercive because you can chose not to pay for the services there and leave

A mortgage isn't coercive because you chose to buy the house (leaving aside the inherited from your parent's thing which fits better anyway)
by the same reasoning
A Tax isn't coercive because you can chose not to start working in that country

etc.'
I don;t think you've disproved any of my points. (Unless you think pointing out that a mortgage isn't coercive using arguments that also apply to taxation was disproving my points in which case you haven't been reading very closely at all)

Almost every action is taxable. Working is almost irrelevant. Buy something, pay sales tax. Or excise tax. There is no choice.

[DaWoad]

No, no, and no. Do Mexican citizens have a choice to come to the US to work? A choice they clearly want to make. The legal choice is, if they have a US citizen sibling, to wait for 131 years after they apply. That is not a choice. You continue being irrational and ridiculous.

that is the fault of the US government not the fault of their own government and, as such, does not make a valid argument that their own government's taxation policies are theft. (kinda like blaming the restaurant that you're eating at for charging you for food because the restaurant that you want to eat at has a 200 year long wait time)

Sorry I missed this one, Lots to respond to :\.

[Lelouche]

I think it is pointless to continue arguing this with you. Every point you continue to make has been disproven.

oh really? could you point to an argument of mine, in this thread of course, that has been disproven? Or, in fact, any argument that you've made about taxation that would not apply to a mortgage on a house that you inherit from your parents. (speaking of, the inherit point is only to cover the "you don't chose to work here argument" which is also covered by "you do chose to work here when you . . .you know. . .choose to get a job. . .here")

EDIT: but hey, it's your choice. I'm not forcing you to argue you can always go somewhere else (thus not coercion) or argue with someone else (thus not coercion) heh heh heh

The fucking restaurant. The mortgage. EVERY point.

Good luck having him see that
Selective reasoning (coupled with cognitive dissonance) is a powerful tool for the willfully ignorant
That is not a personal attack
It's an observation of fact.

sure I just don't agree that I'm the one being willfully ignorant or using selective reasoning *grins* I think that that would be you and the around 20% ish of people who voted that taxation was theft.

You not agreeing is not a problem, you have proven that you are correct, and always will be, regardless of logic, or lack of logic

I made a logical argument:
given that there is no logical argument for a coercive nature of the systems of taxation that cannot be applied, with equal veracity to a system that is not regarded as being coercive, taxation cannot be claimed to be coercive.
We ran through a bunch of arguments about taxation being coercive with me providing counterexamples from systems not considered to be coercive. Often you provided reasoning about those system which I then applied to taxation with equal "truth value".

So far you have failed to find an example of an argument that proves taxation is coercive that cannot be applied to a system that you would not regard as coercive (mortgage, restaurant, etc.). You have also failed to find a reasoning for these thing not being coercive that cannot be applied to taxation.

ergo

Taxation is not coercive.
See good, logical, sense.

No, just no
The Bank, and the Restaurant, don't send uniformed men to your house to "collect" on debts owed
The restaurant does not provide food
The Bank takes back their house, (cause it belongs to them)

The country however, belongs to the people, and not the government, the government is a tenant, an occupier, not an owner, "Government Property" is a lie perpetrated by statist, to justify their own fascism.

[DaWoad]

Almost every action is taxable. Working is almost irrelevant. Buy something, pay sales tax. Or excise tax. There is no choice.

If you don't work you don't own the money you're spending and therefore the taxation is not theft nor coercive as the person who's money you are spending DID make the choice to give it to you knowing that meant it would be taxed.

[Sibirsky]

No, no, and no. Do Mexican citizens have a choice to come to the US to work? A choice they clearly want to make. The legal choice is, if they have a US citizen sibling, to wait for 131 years after they apply. That is not a choice. You continue being irrational and ridiculous.

that is the fault of the US government not the fault of their own government and, as such, does not make a valid argument that their own government's taxation policies are theft. (kinda like blaming the restaurant that you're eating at for charging you for food because the restaurant that you want to eat at has a 200 year long wait time)

Sorry I missed this one, Lots to respond to :\.

This refutes your "choose to work in country" argument. There is no choice.