Taxation is Coercion

[DaWoad]

Statism has failed. The state has at their disposal nearly $4 trillion (US) annually to address problems. Yet the problems are not only not getting solved, but are only getting worse. It's time for another solution.

DaWoad, is there a limit to the power you want? Would $14 trillion be enough?

huh? I wouldn't want 14 trillion, it would devaluate the heck out of the currency and I wouldn't know what to do with it. More importantly I'm fairly sure satetism won't have failed until there is a viable, more effective, alternative (the same way monarchy hadn't failed until democracy came along) and I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to with problems that haven't yet been solved?

[Bendira]

Though to make this argument again, the difference is that, in both the restaurant and mortgage situation you don't own the food you are eating, or the house you are living in, the forcibly removal of your person for failing to pay for these makes sense, they still own both the food and the home, if you don't pay they seek recompensation.
However with the government they at least in terms of rhetoric say you own what you live on, however regardless of whether you ever use the governments services again, you must still pay them. It would be as if in the restaurant scenario, they sent you bills in the mail for the same meal over and over and over regardless of whether you ever bought one at their restaurant.
Which brings up a questionable aspect, if you did since they were charging you anyway go and eat the meals and so did everyone else, that is if every person made full use of what their tax dollars were collected for, would said tax system work.

here is an "ownership or property" argument here which is IMO a shaky one but there is also a much simpler argument. You are paying the restaurant for offering you a service ( in the form of both literal service and a meal) you are paying the bank for a service (essentially paying for your house until you pay them back) You pay the government for a service (society, defense etc.). You can, without fear of repercussion or force make a choice to stop using said services whenever you want (restaurant=go to another restaurant, grocery store or don't eat)(Mortgage=sell house, pay off bank, buy new house with mortgage at another bank or sell house and move into street)(Government, stop using governmental services and gain citizenship in another country where you will likely pay tax or move into a place without taxation). If, however, you simply stop paying for these services but continue to use them they employ one kind of force or another. In the restaurant hey can't exactly recoup their food so they would jail you (or put you to work sometimes?). With the government they can;t exactly recoup the services they provided you so they jail you. With the mortgage they CAN recoup the service they provided by simply taking ownership of the house and they often will while forcibly ejecting you. If they cannot I expect you'd be jailed (fraud charges in some cases for getting a mortgage on a house that isn't yours or doesn't exist).

Every person does make full use of their tax dollars, in fact, most people probably make more than full use of their tax dollars due to the fact that doing something in bulk is always cheaper than doing it individually. (it would be alot more than what anyone pays in taxes each year for you to fund your own fire department, emergency services, roads, paying for health services for those around you so they don't transmit disease to you, potable water, sewage etc.)

Just give up please. You cannot make the choice to stop paying for the services without repurcussion, because of the exit tax that we have been trying to tell you about for the past 10 pages.

Also, if you stop using the government services, they are still going to tax you for them. If I sat in my house and only payed property taxes, id still have to pay for roads and such. And lets not say that food is transported by roads, because I have a survivalist style garden, so I am an urban subsistence farmer. I cut off all utilities and use candles and rainwater. The government still is going to tax me.

When you order food from a restaurant, it is a voluntary contract. Like what has been repeated infinite times here, simply being born is not signing a voluntary contract.

[The Adrian Empire]

Though to make this argument again, the difference is that, in both the restaurant and mortgage situation you don't own the food you are eating, or the house you are living in, the forcibly removal of your person for failing to pay for these makes sense, they still own both the food and the home, if you don't pay they seek recompensation.
However with the government they at least in terms of rhetoric say you own what you live on, however regardless of whether you ever use the governments services again, you must still pay them. It would be as if in the restaurant scenario, they sent you bills in the mail for the same meal over and over and over regardless of whether you ever bought one at their restaurant.
Which brings up a questionable aspect, if you did since they were charging you anyway go and eat the meals and so did everyone else, that is if every person made full use of what their tax dollars were collected for, would said tax system work.

>snip<

However the thing about the taxes is as I described, that it would be levied regardless of service rendered, if you left before you ordered a meal there is no reason for them to give you a bill. If you stop using a service you should no longer have to pay for it, the state's imposition of property taxes and other static taxation disagrees, on the basis that your land is theirs first and foremost and that you must pay them "rent" in the form of taxes. Though not explicitly stated that is more or less the result of property taxes, the more or less destruction of the concept of property.

Every person does make full use of their tax dollars, in fact, most people probably make more than full use of their tax dollars due to the fact that doing something in bulk is always cheaper than doing it individually. (it would be alot more than what anyone pays in taxes each year for you to fund your own fire department, emergency services, roads, paying for health services for those around you so they don't transmit disease to you, potable water, sewage etc.)

Well you are certainly correct, every person makes full use of their tax dollars plus about 50% by my figuring, given that we are operating on a enormous budget deficit, which means that money is being spent for every person beyond what is being taken in taxes, that of course is not sustainable in the long run. We are spending money as soon as we get it, that is bad economics in my opinion.

As for the rest, well the economics of scale do play a part, the state isn't exactly the best source for good fiscal policy (see above), I don't think that justifies coerced spending regardless, though one could not individually afford a fire department, group payments in the same way one pays for other types of insurance might work more effectively then ham-fisted state policy. Costs are usually brought down by competition or the threat thereof (in the case of more monopolistic entities).

[DaWoad]

Though to make this argument again, the difference is that, in both the restaurant and mortgage situation you don't own the food you are eating, or the house you are living in, the forcibly removal of your person for failing to pay for these makes sense, they still own both the food and the home, if you don't pay they seek recompensation.
However with the government they at least in terms of rhetoric say you own what you live on, however regardless of whether you ever use the governments services again, you must still pay them. It would be as if in the restaurant scenario, they sent you bills in the mail for the same meal over and over and over regardless of whether you ever bought one at their restaurant.
Which brings up a questionable aspect, if you did since they were charging you anyway go and eat the meals and so did everyone else, that is if every person made full use of what their tax dollars were collected for, would said tax system work.

here is an "ownership or property" argument here which is IMO a shaky one but there is also a much simpler argument. You are paying the restaurant for offering you a service ( in the form of both literal service and a meal) you are paying the bank for a service (essentially paying for your house until you pay them back) You pay the government for a service (society, defense etc.). You can, without fear of repercussion or force make a choice to stop using said services whenever you want (restaurant=go to another restaurant, grocery store or don't eat)(Mortgage=sell house, pay off bank, buy new house with mortgage at another bank or sell house and move into street)(Government, stop using governmental services and gain citizenship in another country where you will likely pay tax or move into a place without taxation). If, however, you simply stop paying for these services but continue to use them they employ one kind of force or another. In the restaurant hey can't exactly recoup their food so they would jail you (or put you to work sometimes?). With the government they can;t exactly recoup the services they provided you so they jail you. With the mortgage they CAN recoup the service they provided by simply taking ownership of the house and they often will while forcibly ejecting you. If they cannot I expect you'd be jailed (fraud charges in some cases for getting a mortgage on a house that isn't yours or doesn't exist).

Every person does make full use of their tax dollars, in fact, most people probably make more than full use of their tax dollars due to the fact that doing something in bulk is always cheaper than doing it individually. (it would be alot more than what anyone pays in taxes each year for you to fund your own fire department, emergency services, roads, paying for health services for those around you so they don't transmit disease to you, potable water, sewage etc.)

Just give up please. You cannot make the choice to stop paying for the services without repurcussion, because of the exit tax that we have been trying to tell you about for the past 10 pages.

Also, if you stop using the government services, they are still going to tax you for them. If I sat in my house and only payed property taxes, id still have to pay for roads and such. And lets not say that food is transported by roads, because I have a survivalist style garden, so I am an urban subsistence farmer. I cut off all utilities and use candles and rainwater. The government still is going to tax me.

When you order food from a restaurant, it is a voluntary contract. Like what has been repeated infinite times here, simply being born is not signing a voluntary contract.

you can and I've continually explained how and explained that the fact that the options left to you are crappy is not the fault of the government that is taxing you and is not, therefore coercive. The debate between me and Adrian covers this better

No the government won't keep taxing you if you stop using their services. Of course in order to do you you'd have to leave, but still. In your example you'd be charged only property tax as far as i can tell and that would cover the cost of the fire service that ensures that fire doesn't spread throughout the city and burn you down, the police that arrest people who would do you harm and prevent others from trying either directly or indirectly. Roads that provide these people with access, sewage systems that stop you from getting, some very nasty diseases, health services that prevent massive outbreaks that would also be problematic etc. oh . . .and defense!

and as I've repeated countless times working is (and receiving gifts from people who are working is on the part of he/she who gives you said gift).

[DaWoad]

Well you are certainly correct, every person makes full use of their tax dollars plus about 50% by my figuring, given that we are operating on a enormous budget deficit, which means that money is being spent for every person beyond what is being taken in taxes, that of course is not sustainable in the long run. We are spending money as soon as we get it, that is bad economics in my opinion.

As for the rest, well the economics of scale do play a part, the state isn't exactly the best source for good fiscal policy (see above), I don't think that justifies coerced spending regardless, though one could not individually afford a fire department, group payments in the same way one pays for other types of insurance might work more effectively then ham-fisted state policy. Costs are usually brought down by competition or the threat thereof (in the case of more monopolistic entities).

oh definitely possible but it's a very long and complex debate that doesn't really cover this issue (check my edits for more)

EDIT: nor would I claim that it is a good argument for taxation not being theft.

[Bendira]

Though to make this argument again, the difference is that, in both the restaurant and mortgage situation you don't own the food you are eating, or the house you are living in, the forcibly removal of your person for failing to pay for these makes sense, they still own both the food and the home, if you don't pay they seek recompensation.
However with the government they at least in terms of rhetoric say you own what you live on, however regardless of whether you ever use the governments services again, you must still pay them. It would be as if in the restaurant scenario, they sent you bills in the mail for the same meal over and over and over regardless of whether you ever bought one at their restaurant.
Which brings up a questionable aspect, if you did since they were charging you anyway go and eat the meals and so did everyone else, that is if every person made full use of what their tax dollars were collected for, would said tax system work.

here is an "ownership or property" argument here which is IMO a shaky one but there is also a much simpler argument. You are paying the restaurant for offering you a service ( in the form of both literal service and a meal) you are paying the bank for a service (essentially paying for your house until you pay them back) You pay the government for a service (society, defense etc.). You can, without fear of repercussion or force make a choice to stop using said services whenever you want (restaurant=go to another restaurant, grocery store or don't eat)(Mortgage=sell house, pay off bank, buy new house with mortgage at another bank or sell house and move into street)(Government, stop using governmental services and gain citizenship in another country where you will likely pay tax or move into a place without taxation). If, however, you simply stop paying for these services but continue to use them they employ one kind of force or another. In the restaurant hey can't exactly recoup their food so they would jail you (or put you to work sometimes?). With the government they can;t exactly recoup the services they provided you so they jail you. With the mortgage they CAN recoup the service they provided by simply taking ownership of the house and they often will while forcibly ejecting you. If they cannot I expect you'd be jailed (fraud charges in some cases for getting a mortgage on a house that isn't yours or doesn't exist).

Every person does make full use of their tax dollars, in fact, most people probably make more than full use of their tax dollars due to the fact that doing something in bulk is always cheaper than doing it individually. (it would be alot more than what anyone pays in taxes each year for you to fund your own fire department, emergency services, roads, paying for health services for those around you so they don't transmit disease to you, potable water, sewage etc.)

Just give up please. You cannot make the choice to stop paying for the services without repurcussion, because of the exit tax that we have been trying to tell you about for the past 10 pages.

Also, if you stop using the government services, they are still going to tax you for them. If I sat in my house and only payed property taxes, id still have to pay for roads and such. And lets not say that food is transported by roads, because I have a survivalist style garden, so I am an urban subsistence farmer. I cut off all utilities and use candles and rainwater. The government still is going to tax me.

When you order food from a restaurant, it is a voluntary contract. Like what has been repeated infinite times here, simply being born is not signing a voluntary contract.

you can and I've continually explained how and explained that the fact that the options left to you are crappy is not the fault of the government that is taxing you and is not, therefore coercive. The debate between me and Adrian covers this better

No the government won't keep taxing you if you stop using their services. Of course in order to do you you'd have to leave, but still. In your example you'd be charged only property tax as far as i can tell and that would cover the cost of the fire service that ensures that fire doesn't spread throughout the city and burn you down, the police that arrest people who would do you harm and prevent others from trying either directly or indirectly. Roads that provide these people with access, sewage systems that stop you from getting, some very nasty diseases, health services that prevent massive outbreaks that would also be problematic etc. oh . . .and defense!

and as I've repeated countless times working is (and receiving gifts from people who are working is on the part of he/she who gives you said gift).

So basically, the government would make me pay for these services. So you basically ceded my point?

[Sibirsky]

Statism has failed. The state has at their disposal nearly $4 trillion (US) annually to address problems. Yet the problems are not only not getting solved, but are only getting worse. It's time for another solution.

DaWoad, is there a limit to the power you want? Would $14 trillion be enough?

huh? I wouldn't want 14 trillion, it would devaluate the heck out of the currency and I wouldn't know what to do with it. More importantly I'm fairly sure satetism won't have failed until there is a viable, more effective, alternative (the same way monarchy hadn't failed until democracy came along) and I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to with problems that haven't yet been solved?

Did you read, yet somehow miss what I wrote? The problems the state tries to solve, are not being solved and are getting worse. Therefore statism has failed.

[DaWoad]

However the thing about the taxes is as I described, that it would be levied regardless of service rendered, if you left before you ordered a meal there is no reason for them to give you a bill. If you stop using a service you should no longer have to pay for it, the state's imposition of property taxes and other static taxation disagrees, on the basis that your land is theirs first and foremost and that you must pay them "rent" in the form of taxes. Though not explicitly stated that is more or less the result of property taxes, the more or less destruction of the concept of property.

sorry, missed this originally thus the double (triple?) post.
I believe that the justification for property tax is less about rent and more about the services provided simply for owning property (fire,police, etc.). I agree that if you stop using a service you should no-longer have to pay for it but I'm not sure that that is not the case in our society. Like I said I believe that the "taxation based on government ownership of your land" is a very very weak one at best. I believe that taxation based on services government provides even when all you do is own land is a much better argument. (if you didn't work didn't buy food and didn't pay gasoline and owned your house outright you pay much less in the way of tax to the government amounting to, in essence, property tax which covers fire, ambulance etc. see above)

[Xomic]

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.

So... all those pages where Bendira was complaining that leaving the country for somewhere there was no taxation, such as his 'deserted island' where he'd starve/die of disease/etc...

You're basically saying that this wasn't the government's fault, because the government didn't force, or even cause the existence of, the 'elements' that kill poor Bendira?

Guess we're in the clear about this whole 'coercion' thing then.

[DaWoad]

Statism has failed. The state has at their disposal nearly $4 trillion (US) annually to address problems. Yet the problems are not only not getting solved, but are only getting worse. It's time for another solution.

DaWoad, is there a limit to the power you want? Would $14 trillion be enough?

huh? I wouldn't want 14 trillion, it would devaluate the heck out of the currency and I wouldn't know what to do with it. More importantly I'm fairly sure satetism won't have failed until there is a viable, more effective, alternative (the same way monarchy hadn't failed until democracy came along) and I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to with problems that haven't yet been solved?

Did you read, yet somehow miss what I wrote? The problems the state tries to solve, are not being solved and are getting worse. Therefore statism has failed.

I don't know what problem statism is trying to solve that is not being solved not that I don't believe one doesn't exist I'm just generally kinda weak on political theory) and I don't understand how this relates to taxation= or =/= theft.

so. . .yes?

[DaWoad]

Though to make this argument again, the difference is that, in both the restaurant and mortgage situation you don't own the food you are eating, or the house you are living in, the forcibly removal of your person for failing to pay for these makes sense, they still own both the food and the home, if you don't pay they seek recompensation.
However with the government they at least in terms of rhetoric say you own what you live on, however regardless of whether you ever use the governments services again, you must still pay them. It would be as if in the restaurant scenario, they sent you bills in the mail for the same meal over and over and over regardless of whether you ever bought one at their restaurant.
Which brings up a questionable aspect, if you did since they were charging you anyway go and eat the meals and so did everyone else, that is if every person made full use of what their tax dollars were collected for, would said tax system work.

here is an "ownership or property" argument here which is IMO a shaky one but there is also a much simpler argument. You are paying the restaurant for offering you a service ( in the form of both literal service and a meal) you are paying the bank for a service (essentially paying for your house until you pay them back) You pay the government for a service (society, defense etc.). You can, without fear of repercussion or force make a choice to stop using said services whenever you want (restaurant=go to another restaurant, grocery store or don't eat)(Mortgage=sell house, pay off bank, buy new house with mortgage at another bank or sell house and move into street)(Government, stop using governmental services and gain citizenship in another country where you will likely pay tax or move into a place without taxation). If, however, you simply stop paying for these services but continue to use them they employ one kind of force or another. In the restaurant hey can't exactly recoup their food so they would jail you (or put you to work sometimes?). With the government they can;t exactly recoup the services they provided you so they jail you. With the mortgage they CAN recoup the service they provided by simply taking ownership of the house and they often will while forcibly ejecting you. If they cannot I expect you'd be jailed (fraud charges in some cases for getting a mortgage on a house that isn't yours or doesn't exist).

Every person does make full use of their tax dollars, in fact, most people probably make more than full use of their tax dollars due to the fact that doing something in bulk is always cheaper than doing it individually. (it would be alot more than what anyone pays in taxes each year for you to fund your own fire department, emergency services, roads, paying for health services for those around you so they don't transmit disease to you, potable water, sewage etc.)

Just give up please. You cannot make the choice to stop paying for the services without repurcussion, because of the exit tax that we have been trying to tell you about for the past 10 pages.

Also, if you stop using the government services, they are still going to tax you for them. If I sat in my house and only payed property taxes, id still have to pay for roads and such. And lets not say that food is transported by roads, because I have a survivalist style garden, so I am an urban subsistence farmer. I cut off all utilities and use candles and rainwater. The government still is going to tax me.

When you order food from a restaurant, it is a voluntary contract. Like what has been repeated infinite times here, simply being born is not signing a voluntary contract.

you can and I've continually explained how and explained that the fact that the options left to you are crappy is not the fault of the government that is taxing you and is not, therefore coercive. The debate between me and Adrian covers this better

No the government won't keep taxing you if you stop using their services. Of course in order to do you you'd have to leave, but still. In your example you'd be charged only property tax as far as i can tell and that would cover the cost of the fire service that ensures that fire doesn't spread throughout the city and burn you down, the police that arrest people who would do you harm and prevent others from trying either directly or indirectly. Roads that provide these people with access, sewage systems that stop you from getting, some very nasty diseases, health services that prevent massive outbreaks that would also be problematic etc. oh . . .and defense!

and as I've repeated countless times working is (and receiving gifts from people who are working is on the part of he/she who gives you said gift).

So basically, the government would make me pay for these services. So you basically ceded my point?

noooo, I'm saying that by living in a house in said state you are using services and therefore must pay for them. I'm also saying that because you can leave and not have to pay for those services it's no coercion and the state isn't forcing you to do anything.

[Bendira]

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.

So... all those pages where Bendira was complaining that leaving the country for somewhere there was no taxation, such as his 'deserted island' where he'd starve/die of disease/etc...

You're basically saying that this wasn't the government's fault, because the government didn't force, or even cause the existence of, the 'elements' that kill poor Bendira?

Guess we're in the clear about this whole 'coercion' thing then.

No, because the government is violently coercing me to die of starvation on the deserted island, where as the homeless man is not being violently coerced to not have a job to afford a house.

[Lelouche]

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.

So... all those pages where Bendira was complaining that leaving the country for somewhere there was no taxation, such as his 'deserted island' where he'd starve/die of disease/etc...

You're basically saying that this wasn't the government's fault, because the government didn't force, or even cause the existence of, the 'elements' that kill poor Bendira?

Guess we're in the clear about this whole 'coercion' thing then.

Wut?
The Government did not make fictional homeless man default on his mortgage
They did however give fictional angry libertarian/Anarchist the choice between taxation/prison/exile

I don't care about the deserted island argument, he made the choice to live there, to avoid taxes
And that doesn't guarantee that he would die
People live on Islands all the time, with and without government, with other people or by themselves.
If humans are good at one thing, it's survival in extreme environments.

[DaWoad]

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.

So... all those pages where Bendira was complaining that leaving the country for somewhere there was no taxation, such as his 'deserted island' where he'd starve/die of disease/etc...

You're basically saying that this wasn't the government's fault, because the government didn't force, or even cause the existence of, the 'elements' that kill poor Bendira?

Guess we're in the clear about this whole 'coercion' thing then.

No, because the government is violently coercing me to die of starvation on the deserted island, where as the homeless man is not being violently coerced to not have a job to afford a house.

he's being violently coerced to have a mortgage or die in the streets. A point I must have made about 12 times by now.

[Bendira]

noooo, I'm saying that by living in a house in said state you are using services and therefore must pay for them. I'm also saying that because you can leave and not have to pay for those services it's no coercion and the state isn't forcing you to do anything.

Dude can you please explain to me why I would even want police services anyways? You make it sound like it would be stupid of me not to accept police services. You do realize that the police actually prevent me from defending myself right? Because if I mounted a 50 caliber machine gun on the top of my house, I would probably be the safest house in the neighborhood. But the police would arrest me for it. If I bought an automatic weapon, the police would arrest me for it. The police prevent me from defending myself in the first place, so the idea that their service is something that is crucial to my survival is the most ridiculous BS ever. They make me helpless by forcibly removing every defensive option I have, and then force me to rely on them for protection.

[Lelouche]

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.

So... all those pages where Bendira was complaining that leaving the country for somewhere there was no taxation, such as his 'deserted island' where he'd starve/die of disease/etc...

You're basically saying that this wasn't the government's fault, because the government didn't force, or even cause the existence of, the 'elements' that kill poor Bendira?

Guess we're in the clear about this whole 'coercion' thing then.

No, because the government is violently coercing me to die of starvation on the deserted island, where as the homeless man is not being violently coerced to not have a job to afford a house.

he's being violently coerced to have a mortgage or die in the streets. A point I must have made about 12 times by now.

A point we have rejected and disproved 12 times now
simply because you said it, doesn't make it true

[Sibirsky]

Statism has failed. The state has at their disposal nearly $4 trillion (US) annually to address problems. Yet the problems are not only not getting solved, but are only getting worse. It's time for another solution.

DaWoad, is there a limit to the power you want? Would $14 trillion be enough?

huh? I wouldn't want 14 trillion, it would devaluate the heck out of the currency and I wouldn't know what to do with it. More importantly I'm fairly sure satetism won't have failed until there is a viable, more effective, alternative (the same way monarchy hadn't failed until democracy came along) and I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to with problems that haven't yet been solved?

Did you read, yet somehow miss what I wrote? The problems the state tries to solve, are not being solved and are getting worse. Therefore statism has failed.

I don't know what problem statism is trying to solve that is not being solved not that I don't believe one doesn't exist I'm just generally kinda weak on political theory) and I don't understand how this relates to taxation= or =/= theft.

so. . .yes?

The state uses taxes to solve it's problems. It's a digression because continuing the mortgage, restaurant, nation thing is insanity.

You don't know of any problems the state is attempting to solve without success? A depression? In normal times, poverty?

[Bendira]

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.

So... all those pages where Bendira was complaining that leaving the country for somewhere there was no taxation, such as his 'deserted island' where he'd starve/die of disease/etc...

You're basically saying that this wasn't the government's fault, because the government didn't force, or even cause the existence of, the 'elements' that kill poor Bendira?

Guess we're in the clear about this whole 'coercion' thing then.

Wut?
The Government did not make fictional homeless man default on his mortgage
They did however give fictional angry libertarian/Anarchist the choice between taxation/prison/exile

I don't care about the deserted island argument, he made the choice to live there, to avoid taxes
And that doesn't guarantee that he would die
People live on Islands all the time, with and without government, with other people or by themselves.
If humans are good at one thing, it's survival in extreme environments.

The whole point about me starving to death on the island is really irrelevant considering the act of being exiled is coercion within itself. So he is drawing an irrelevant comparison here.

[Lelouche]

They make me helpless by forcibly removing every defensive option I have, and then force me to rely on them for protection.

To borrow this quote "The State makes you helpless, by removing every option for self-reliance you have, and then force you to rely on them for your survival"

Welcome to your tax justification

Socialism 101

[DaWoad]

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.

So... all those pages where Bendira was complaining that leaving the country for somewhere there was no taxation, such as his 'deserted island' where he'd starve/die of disease/etc...

You're basically saying that this wasn't the government's fault, because the government didn't force, or even cause the existence of, the 'elements' that kill poor Bendira?

Guess we're in the clear about this whole 'coercion' thing then.

No, because the government is violently coercing me to die of starvation on the deserted island, where as the homeless man is not being violently coerced to not have a job to afford a house.

he's being violently coerced to have a mortgage or die in the streets. A point I must have made about 12 times by now.

A point we have rejected and disproved 12 times now
simply because you said it, doesn't make it true

which, ironically (well sort of) applied you your claim that you've disproved it 12 times now.
and again the point that I don't think he IS being violently coerced which, to my mind, means that neither is he who leaves the country, nor she who pays the taxes.

[The Adrian Empire]

However the thing about the taxes is as I described, that it would be levied regardless of service rendered, if you left before you ordered a meal there is no reason for them to give you a bill. If you stop using a service you should no longer have to pay for it, the state's imposition of property taxes and other static taxation disagrees, on the basis that your land is theirs first and foremost and that you must pay them "rent" in the form of taxes. Though not explicitly stated that is more or less the result of property taxes, the more or less destruction of the concept of property.

sorry, missed this originally thus the double (triple?) post.
I believe that the justification for property tax is less about rent and more about the services provided simply for owning property (fire,police, etc.). I agree that if you stop using a service you should no-longer have to pay for it but I'm not sure that that is not the case in our society. Like I said I believe that the "taxation based on government ownership of your land" is a very very weak one at best. I believe that taxation based on services government provides even when all you do is own land is a much better argument. (if you didn't work didn't buy food and didn't pay gasoline and owned your house outright you pay much less in the way of tax to the government amounting to, in essence, property tax which covers fire, ambulance etc. see above)

Yeah sorry, bad habit of doing multiple edits from after-thoughts or often my absent minded way of thinking I wrote something when I really just thought it.

Indeed, my problem is that there seems to be no limit, when tax is considered a civic duty rather then a payment for service rendered, that means in cases like the property tax it doesn't matter if you lived completely independent of the system, you have to pay for it. But I can agree that you have to pay for the services you do use, I simply disagree that such decisions are not voluntary. Well then I suppose that is a fair comprimise. And I am tired. So night all.

[Sibirsky]

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.

So... all those pages where Bendira was complaining that leaving the country for somewhere there was no taxation, such as his 'deserted island' where he'd starve/die of disease/etc...

You're basically saying that this wasn't the government's fault, because the government didn't force, or even cause the existence of, the 'elements' that kill poor Bendira?

Guess we're in the clear about this whole 'coercion' thing then.

No, because the government is violently coercing me to die of starvation on the deserted island, where as the homeless man is not being violently coerced to not have a job to afford a house.

he's being violently coerced to have a mortgage or die in the streets. A point I must have made about 12 times by now.

The point is not valid. He chose to buy that house, and not pay cash for it. He can rent. He can live with family. He can live with roommates to reduce the mortgage or rent. Shit, you think the Feds would let me split my tax bill with a friend? Now, how do I convince my friend to pay a portion of my taxes?

[DaWoad]

They make me helpless by forcibly removing every defensive option I have, and then force me to rely on them for protection.

To borrow this quote "The State makes you helpless, by removing every option for self-reliance you have, and then force you to rely on them for your survival"

Welcome to your tax justification

Socialism 101

I don't think anyone's tried to justify taxes on that basis at all. In fact part of my reasoning behind taxation not being theft is that you can leave and go defend yourself and that, by consequence you needn't pay a penny for defence.

[Sibirsky]

noooo, I'm saying that by living in a house in said state you are using services and therefore must pay for them. I'm also saying that because you can leave and not have to pay for those services it's no coercion and the state isn't forcing you to do anything.

Dude can you please explain to me why I would even want police services anyways? You make it sound like it would be stupid of me not to accept police services. You do realize that the police actually prevent me from defending myself right? Because if I mounted a 50 caliber machine gun on the top of my house, I would probably be the safest house in the neighborhood. But the police would arrest me for it. If I bought an automatic weapon, the police would arrest me for it. The police prevent me from defending myself in the first place, so the idea that their service is something that is crucial to my survival is the most ridiculous BS ever. They make me helpless by forcibly removing every defensive option I have, and then force me to rely on them for protection.

The majority of police work, is protecting people from themselves. I don't mean other people, I mean themselves. Victimless crimes.

[The Adrian Empire]

noooo, I'm saying that by living in a house in said state you are using services and therefore must pay for them. I'm also saying that because you can leave and not have to pay for those services it's no coercion and the state isn't forcing you to do anything.

Dude can you please explain to me why I would even want police services anyways? You make it sound like it would be stupid of me not to accept police services. You do realize that the police actually prevent me from defending myself right? Because if I mounted a 50 caliber machine gun on the top of my house, I would probably be the safest house in the neighborhood. But the police would arrest me for it. If I bought an automatic weapon, the police would arrest me for it. The police prevent me from defending myself in the first place, so the idea that their service is something that is crucial to my survival is the most ridiculous BS ever. They make me helpless by forcibly removing every defensive option I have, and then force me to rely on them for protection.

The majority of police work, is protecting people from themselves. I don't mean other people, I mean themselves. Victimless crimes.

I read somewhere that 80% of all crimes are drug-related, makes you wonder what would happen to the crime rate if they were legalized.