Taxation is Coercion

[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.

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?

heck yes they would. All you gotta do is marry the person *grins* or, yes, convince your friend to pay part of your tax. (and again you can move somewhere with less taxes that is less nice (renting), move in with your parents (bye property tax) etc.) the argument applies to both taxes and mortgages equally (sort of) it's just a matter of scale on what you have to sacrifice to do so.

[Sibirsky]

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.

I can buy a chunk of land and live there tax free? No, I cannot. I have to pay property taxes. God forbid I have the idea of buying a service from a private company, the service will be taxed.

[DaWoad]

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.

hard to tell, some of that will be crimes while someone was on drugs which might go up. Some of the rest would go down though probably *shrugs* who knows???

[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

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.

If they said it outloud, nobody would buy it, those of course they would not make that case, it is self defeating
And you can't live anywhere you please, every place has it's own standards for who is allowed, and who isn't
And defense is always, always the jurisdiction of the state.

The "Monopoly on Violence" is the key to every single state's legitimacy.
In otherwords, even our precious western democracies, are based on the "Might Makes Right" fallacy.

[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.

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.

Does that 80% encompass the things such as murder and shootouts etc. that result from the drug black market, where the government refuses to settle drug disputes in a court of law, which results in violent settlements and many other crimes than just drug possession and trafficking charges?

[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.

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.

Honestly? They'd come up with new crimes.

[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?

heck yes they would. All you gotta do is marry the person *grins* or, yes, convince your friend to pay part of your tax. (and again you can move somewhere with less taxes that is less nice (renting), move in with your parents (bye property tax) etc.) the argument applies to both taxes and mortgages equally (sort of) it's just a matter of scale on what you have to sacrifice to do so.

Why are you ignoring my statist problems question?

[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.

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.

hard to tell, some of that will be crimes while someone was on drugs which might go up. Some of the rest would go down though probably *shrugs* who knows???

Considering that nations that legalized drugs saw a decrease in drug use, I see no way for drug related crime to increase.

[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.

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.

Does that 80% encompass the things such as murder and shootouts etc. that result from the drug black market, where the government refuses to settle drug disputes in a court of law, which results in violent settlements and many other crimes than just drug possession and trafficking charges?

Government increases the cost of their property and then refuses to protect that property. And then wonders why drug dealers are armed.

[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.

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.

Does that 80% encompass the things such as murder and shootouts etc. that result from the drug black market, where the government refuses to settle drug disputes in a court of law, which results in violent settlements and many other crimes than just drug possession and trafficking charges?

Government increases the cost of their property and then refuses to protect that property. And then wonders why drug dealers are armed. I think the 80% number is strictly drug crimes. Possession/distribution.

[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.

I can buy a chunk of land and live there tax free? No, I cannot. I have to pay property taxes. God forbid I have the idea of buying a service from a private company, the service will be taxed.

sure you can, it can't be a chunk of land that enjoys any state backed service or protection (er except maybe somalia) but there are certainly a couple of unclaimed islands out there you could probably buy which you wouldn't have to pay any tax on at all..

[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.

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.

Does that 80% encompass the things such as murder and shootouts etc. that result from the drug black market, where the government refuses to settle drug disputes in a court of law, which results in violent settlements and many other crimes than just drug possession and trafficking charges?

Government increases the cost of their property and then refuses to protect that property. And then wonders why drug dealers are armed. I think the 80% number is strictly drug crimes. Possession/distribution.

If the 80% is strictly drug possession and distribution, than the number would be even higher than 80% if drugs were legalized. I always laugh at people who have this vision of an apocalyptic scenario where drugs were legalized. To be honest, if drugs were legalized, society would be pretty damn boring. Because the bloods and the crips would be fighting legal battles, instead of performing drive by's.

[Xomic]

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.

I'm writing a longer reply atm, but, for the bolded part; many of us have pointed out the inherent interconnectivity of things; for example, while you may drive on only a few miles of roads, your food likely comes over great swaths of road to get to you. However, I don't think I've actually seen a response to this point; just because you don't see what you've used in daily life, does not mean it doesn't exist, and isn't connected to you.

One of the things Paul Hawkens talks about in the article I mentioned in the other thread is that we rarely pay for the 'true cost' of items, which is actually a *lot* higher.

[Bendira]

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.

I can buy a chunk of land and live there tax free? No, I cannot. I have to pay property taxes. God forbid I have the idea of buying a service from a private company, the service will be taxed.

sure you can, it can't be a chunk of land that enjoys any state backed service or protection (er except maybe somalia) but there are certainly a couple of unclaimed islands out there you could probably buy which you wouldn't have to pay any tax on at all..

Are you doing this just so you can brag about how you fought off an onslaught of rational libertarian anarchists? I don't understand your persistence when its obvious that you are unwilling to cede any of your horrible metaphorical arguments. If we truly are totally wrong, think of different metaphors to use. Because the ones you are using now are completely ineffective in convincing any of us.

[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.

I can buy a chunk of land and live there tax free? No, I cannot. I have to pay property taxes. God forbid I have the idea of buying a service from a private company, the service will be taxed.

sure you can, it can't be a chunk of land that enjoys any state backed service or protection (er except maybe somalia) but there are certainly a couple of unclaimed islands out there you could probably buy which you wouldn't have to pay any tax on at all..

Are you doing this just so you can brag about how you fought off an onslaught of rational libertarian anarchists? I don't understand your persistence when its obvious that you are unwilling to cede any of your horrible metaphorical arguments. If we truly are totally wrong, think of different metaphors to use. Because the ones you are using now are completely ineffective in convincing any of us.

sure, I can use university residence, or buying anything you want, or any type of thing that ivolves a loan I just didn't wanna be accused of shifting goalposts and 'cause I like my metaphorical arguments!

also I'm doing this because it's fun and, to my mind, interesting you?

[DaWoad]

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.

hard to tell, some of that will be crimes while someone was on drugs which might go up. Some of the rest would go down though probably *shrugs* who knows???

Considering that nations that legalized drugs saw a decrease in drug use, I see no way for drug related crime to increase.

err well there are crimes commited while on drugs and then there are the crimes that are because having drugs is illegal. the second would go down drastically the first might go up . .. maybe. overall almost certainly down you're right (the only thing I can think of would be if the law was already not being enforced on those points but people hadn't noticed yet you might see a small rise in crimes on drugs?).

[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.

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?

heck yes they would. All you gotta do is marry the person *grins* or, yes, convince your friend to pay part of your tax. (and again you can move somewhere with less taxes that is less nice (renting), move in with your parents (bye property tax) etc.) the argument applies to both taxes and mortgages equally (sort of) it's just a matter of scale on what you have to sacrifice to do so.

Why are you ignoring my statist problems question?

sorry thought I covered it, where is it?

[Xomic]

Wut?
The Government did not make fictional homeless man default on his mortgage

No, the bank did, which is my point. You're saying that the bank isn't forcing anyone to pay for a mortgage under the threat of death if they do not do so. However, if the man or woman defaults, and cannot pay, he's kicked out.

The whole premise of the argument that Taxation is theft, is that you have to pay taxes, or go to jail. As I and other have tried to point out, you do have a choice, between paying taxes, or leaving the country and not paying taxes. But, in reality, you have a choice between staying in the country or not, and, should you say yes, you have a choice between paying taxes or not.

The problem here is that I, and others, are more or less saying that the first tier choice you make (stay or leave) is why taxation isn't theft. The second tier choice (pay taxes, or not) is on the level of the restaurant example-- you're in the country benefiting from that country, laws, roads, etc (in essence, eating their food). If you don't pay, you go to jail, because you've stolen from the state/society.

Let's expand the homeless man example a bit more. Let's say Homeless man, before he was homeless man, was a man that lived with his parents. Now, he has a choice- stay, or go. If he stays, he'll have to help out, pay rent or do chores (or both). If he doesn't pay the rent, or (if his parents are anal enough) do the chores, he gets kicked out.

Let's say, however, that he leaves for the wide world. Now, in leaving, he is, in essence, leaving his loved ones, including any friends he might have in the area, to go elsewhere. As with every person, this man has a great many opinions before him. He could rent a home, buy a home and pay a mortgage, join a commune (or the military, Basically, he has choices) With each choice, he will have to pay in some sense (rent/mortgage/buying cost money, commune/military/etc costs labor). If he feels he's up to it, he can go into the woods and build himself a cabin and live as a hermit.

Our man, however, decides to get a house, with a mortgage, and live that way. Sometime later, this man can no longer pay his payments, and defaults. He's put out on the street, where he might very well starve/freeze to death.

Perhaps I'm misreading the arguments, perhaps you're really arguing that it ought to a clearly defined choice (like taking ever 18 year old to an island and giving them a choice between the US/any country or a plane/boat ticket to anywhere else, and maybe you're saying the government should exile people who don't pay taxes, rather than imprison them.

They did however give fictional angry libertarian/Anarchist the choice between taxation/prison/exile

In essence, then, the bank has exiled the man due to not paying.

Now, from this thread, there seems to be three issues I'm having with some of the arguments.*
1) The basic question is whether or not taxation is theft. All taxation. Some seem to be arguing that tax A or B or C is a problem, and then applying that reasoning to taxation as a whole. For example, maybe I don't agree with exit taxes, but that doesn't mean I think taxes are thievery.

2) A number of times, it seems to have been applied or assumed that we're talking about the United States. I don't really care if the United States taxes people exiting their country, because I might be living somewhere they don't. Some countries are easier to leave then others, so you can't really apply any difficulties you may have in exiting the USA with every country or possible country that might exist. I'm not saying, don't use real world examples, merely that you should consider that trying to refute an argument against the idea that taxation if theft (IE you have the choice to leave the country) by using a single example is not necessarily going to work. It's like arguing that, since no one can legally leave North Korea, it's impossible to leave a country.

3) Number three is... I forget. sorry. (maybe it's Bendira's continual posting of an argument that's been shown flawed several times. Repeating your argument (especially without revising it) doesn't really make it true.)

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.

I agree, the argument that was made that the choice to live on a deserted island was basically suicide.

*goes to bed*

*I'm not telling you not to make them, I'm not a mod, but I do find them a bit frustrating, given aren't not talking about Tax type C, or America (or so I feel).

[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)

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.

Agreed, night man. despite us not seeing eye to eye, it was fun.

[Dyakovo]

This thread again

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

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

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

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

Simply because that is what we do, does not make it right
regardless of your circular assumption
I never requested the services government currently provides, I never agreed to pay for those services

you agree to them by using them. stop using them and you stop paying for them.

Indeed I never asked to be born into this society, I was not given a choice

sure you are, you don't have to stay in this society and you do not pay taxes the moment you are born. In fact, you don't start paying taxes until you begin working (give or take)

It's coercion, pure and simple, and the morality of coercion cannot be argued

Coercion implies a binay solution set of "reasonable" options
"do this or I punish you"
(for example armed robbery, give me money or be shot, is coercion)

If you have another option it is not coercion.
(for example buying food from a grocers is not coercion essentially because I have the option to buy food and pay for it, buy food,don't pay for it and get punished or to not buy food and not pay for it)

Taxation in a society that will not permit you to leave is coercion because you have a binary set solution "pay taxes or be imprisoned"
Taxation in the west is not coercion because you have the option to go elsewhere to work. It may not be a "good" option but it certainly is AN option.

Moving is not only not a good option, it's not even a valid one.

So it is impossible to emigrate?

[Lelouche]

This thread again

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

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

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

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

Simply because that is what we do, does not make it right
regardless of your circular assumption
I never requested the services government currently provides, I never agreed to pay for those services

you agree to them by using them. stop using them and you stop paying for them.

Indeed I never asked to be born into this society, I was not given a choice

sure you are, you don't have to stay in this society and you do not pay taxes the moment you are born. In fact, you don't start paying taxes until you begin working (give or take)

It's coercion, pure and simple, and the morality of coercion cannot be argued

Coercion implies a binay solution set of "reasonable" options
"do this or I punish you"
(for example armed robbery, give me money or be shot, is coercion)

If you have another option it is not coercion.
(for example buying food from a grocers is not coercion essentially because I have the option to buy food and pay for it, buy food,don't pay for it and get punished or to not buy food and not pay for it)

Taxation in a society that will not permit you to leave is coercion because you have a binary set solution "pay taxes or be imprisoned"
Taxation in the west is not coercion because you have the option to go elsewhere to work. It may not be a "good" option but it certainly is AN option.

Moving is not only not a good option, it's not even a valid one.

So it is impossible to emigrate?

It's exceptionally difficult to emigrate, and not every place will let "just anybody" in.
You don't have freedom of movement, that is a myth.
Equating Moving to choosing a different restaurant, or not paying a mortgage is a patently ridiculous argument
Moving to escape taxes (to concievablly another place that will tax us anyway) is not something most of us are willing to do, as it requires a lifestyle change we aren't prepared to accept, and won't actually change your situation anyways
It's pay government A, or pay Government A+, you chose the flavor of oppression.

[Dyakovo]

Moving is not only not a good option, it's not even a valid one.

So it is impossible to emigrate?

It's exceptionally difficult to emigrate <SNIP>.

There's plenty of people who would disagree. I guess you're just not properly motivated.

[Lelouche]

Moving is not only not a good option, it's not even a valid one.

So it is impossible to emigrate?

It's exceptionally difficult to emigrate <SNIP>.

There's plenty of people who would disagree. I guess you're just not properly motivated.

Because you say so, makes it true
I have no patience for people who deny the reality
Many countries do not have open border policies
It's difficult to move, and even if you can, it takes resources, plus there is family, friends, culture, language to consider
In short, the list of obstacles is substantial, Taxes (as they sit now) aren't necessarily enough in and of themselves to push me over that edge.

If you want a list of things that are gonna push me over the edge, I suggest we move that conversation somewhere else. However if it comes to that, I won't be moving, I will be rebelling.

Second, even if it were easy, (which it is not) Why should I have to move, because other people want to live a statist society?, I was born here, I have just as much right to be here as anyone else.

[Dyakovo]

Moving is not only not a good option, it's not even a valid one.

So it is impossible to emigrate?

It's exceptionally difficult to emigrate <SNIP>.

There's plenty of people who would disagree. I guess you're just not properly motivated.

Because you say so, makes it true.

The number of illegal immigrants to the US comes to mind as an example of people who don't find it to be, as you and Bendira claim, essentially impossible to emigrate...

What it really comes down to is you and all the other anarcho-capalists want to enjoy all the benefits of living in a civilised society without out having to pay any of the costs.

[Lelouche]

Moving is not only not a good option, it's not even a valid one.

So it is impossible to emigrate?

It's exceptionally difficult to emigrate <SNIP>.

There's plenty of people who would disagree. I guess you're just not properly motivated.

Because you say so, makes it true.

The number of illegal immigrants to the US comes to mind as an example of people who don't find it to be, as you and Bendira claim, essentially impossible to emigrate...

What it really comes down to is you and all the other anarcho-capalists want to enjoy all the benefits of living in a civilised society without out having to pay any of the costs.

I love how you snip out everything of value and instead focus on the only thing you can address
excellent tactic
I tip my hat to you.