Taxation is Coercion

[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.

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.

I addressed what I chose to address. *shrugs*
My point still stands.

[Sungai Pusat]

Privatisation scam, huh? Are you thinking that I was trying to get the services privatised with current laws, like the massive bailout money given to businesses in USA? I hope not. I mean, check my post. I said in one of them that the only legimitate laws in the economy would be againstt force and fraud. Fraud laws are already going to make a scam from the companies literally impossible.

Scam isn't intended a literal of legal term. More akin to what you might call "honest profiteering". I.e. buying something on the cheap, jacking up access charges and raking in money whilst running the system into the ground then dumping it back on the cheap.

However, this doesn't address dissatisfaction rather than orgasmic delight when people have their services flogged off. There is no evidence that privatisation is wildly popular or that the masses beg for muni services and infrastructure to be sold off. I have presented cases that have all shown this. Where is the evidence that suggests otherwise?

I mean, let suppose I have, let say, a company making school bags. If I set up my business in a place where slavery was legal, I could easily sell each bag for $4 without thinking about the labour as all labour is slavery. But in a free market, anyone can choose where they want towork. With my very same company there, if there is a need of three workers to make one bag, each bag takes half an hour to make and if supply and demand system demands me to pay the minimum of $5 an hour, then I have to pay that amount as a minimum. If I pay below, less people would want to work at my company. My business would then fail. Don't you see? Your 'evidence' is something that would happen only when government comes into play. Because if the minimum wage is $6 and hour, but I can only aford $5 an hour for my workers and if no other company is hiring, then wouldn't all the workers in my company bcome unemployed?

Once again, laws. If the company could get away with it because the laws had a massive loophole or something, then it is the government. Just remember that the website you took is from Malaysia. With a messy government, they are bound to let things run loose.

Didn't get it from a website. I was a happy, contended, customer of a dynamic and innovative water delivery solution! or some such shite. Incidentally. IWK It wasn't fraud, it was just profiteering, or rather "profit motive". No fraud involved at all. As for "messy" government, the old muni serice was run just fine, and had no problems.

I know profit motive. If they did not give what they've promised, it is already fraud. And no, a messy government is not good. Take note of the several buildings in Malaysia that have collapsed. Now, not that I am saying government intervention is best here, but if they are going to do something, they should at the least do their best. And a governmental 'for the people' monopoly is not what we need.

Any single entity can't have no profit. Otherwise, how is it going to grow? And like I said, if there is a loophole in the laws, there is no use saying you want to ban force and fraud and yet have a loophole serving to some place and etc.

Fraud wasn't a major factor in any of these failings.

Yes, it would. If a company was going to fail because its competitors played a dirty trick and no one picked it back to its feet, then it is the competitor's fault. If the company itself had a leadership problem, then it is the company in the wrong,

That is this time their fault, but the government needs to let them fail. If they do, it disincentivises other companies from making the very same mistakes all over again.

Yes, I see no problem with the letting maintenance work on an underground mass transit system stop when the company goes bust. That wouldn't be bad at all, would it? You use the MRT, right?

Look, there are many other companies out there who can take over. And yes, the government and the people need poor leadership to fall. That way, it disincentivises it. Sure, there is going to be a traffice problem, but it is like a depression or recession. You need to let go to let the economy pick itself once again. You can't expect the government to pick it up every time. That just incentives poor management. Then, it will be harder not to incentivise than to incentivise.

Second one from the back: Couldn't find any info. All info was in islamic writing.

It's called Arabic.

Yes, but I'll use Google Translate.

[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.

I addressed what I chose to address. *shrugs*
My point still stands.

No it doesn't, all you are capable of doing is casting dispersions about our "True motives" when in reality there is no way you could know such a thing
We want a free society, even if that means creating one where your precious "State" exists now.
I'm sorry that the principles of self-reliance have been lost to modern society
More the reason to destroy and remake it.

[Shayrshaa]

eh, it's not theft if you agree to it. Unfortunately, there's not many options to not agree to it anymore- anybody know of somewhere you can live where you don't have to be taxed? I suppose in the sense that there's virtually no where to live that isn't governed, so you can't really be free, it is a sort of enslavement.
It's also sort of like saying that a parent making their kid do the dishes is enslaving them. I mean, you're getting something for your taxes- firemen, for one thing. And an army that sometimes does horrible things you don't agree with, but also is there to keep horrible things you don't agree with from happening to you. And welfare so you'll never starve and you don't have to die of a curable disease. So it's not really theft because you're paying for a service, albeit begrudgingly and out of fear of imprisonment.
And anyway you do have some choices, at least in a democratic govt, you can try and elect someone who will lower taxes for example. So there's an element of theft I suppose but it'd be disingenuous to call it out-and-out theft.

[Sungai Pusat]

eh, it's not theft if you agree to it. Unfortunately, there's not many options to not agree to it anymore- anybody know of somewhere you can live where you don't have to be taxed? I suppose in the sense that there's virtually no where to live that isn't governed, so you can't really be free, it is a sort of enslavement.
It's also sort of like saying that a parent making their kid do the dishes is enslaving them. I mean, you're getting something for your taxes- firemen, for one thing. And an army that sometimes does horrible things you don't agree with, but also is there to keep horrible things you don't agree with from happening to you. And welfare so you'll never starve and you don't have to die of a curable disease. So it's not really theft because you're paying for a service, albeit begrudgingly and out of fear of imprisonment.
And anyway you do have some choices, at least in a democratic govt, you can try and elect someone who will lower taxes for example. So there's an element of theft I suppose but it'd be disingenuous to call it out-and-out theft.

Actualy, it isn't. Taking money forcefully from the people is already theft. And even though you get something, it would be much simpler just to pay them when you need the service.

[Lelouche]

eh, it's not theft if you agree to it. Unfortunately, there's not many options to not agree to it anymore- anybody know of somewhere you can live where you don't have to be taxed? I suppose in the sense that there's virtually no where to live that isn't governed, so you can't really be free, it is a sort of enslavement.
It's also sort of like saying that a parent making their kid do the dishes is enslaving them. I mean, you're getting something for your taxes- firemen, for one thing. And an army that sometimes does horrible things you don't agree with, but also is there to keep horrible things you don't agree with from happening to you. And welfare so you'll never starve and you don't have to die of a curable disease. So it's not really theft because you're paying for a service, albeit begrudgingly and out of fear of imprisonment.
And anyway you do have some choices, at least in a democratic govt, you can try and elect someone who will lower taxes for example. So there's an element of theft I suppose but it'd be disingenuous to call it out-and-out theft.

Actualy, it isn't. Taking money forcefully from the people is already theft. And even though you get something, it would be much simpler just to pay them when you need the service.

It's like being robbed by a crackhead, but hey, at least he gets to eat right?, (or just feed his addiction)
The cause is irrelevant, the issue is the means.
It's not voluntary, it's compulsory, via coercion

[Sungai Pusat]

eh, it's not theft if you agree to it. Unfortunately, there's not many options to not agree to it anymore- anybody know of somewhere you can live where you don't have to be taxed? I suppose in the sense that there's virtually no where to live that isn't governed, so you can't really be free, it is a sort of enslavement.
It's also sort of like saying that a parent making their kid do the dishes is enslaving them. I mean, you're getting something for your taxes- firemen, for one thing. And an army that sometimes does horrible things you don't agree with, but also is there to keep horrible things you don't agree with from happening to you. And welfare so you'll never starve and you don't have to die of a curable disease. So it's not really theft because you're paying for a service, albeit begrudgingly and out of fear of imprisonment.
And anyway you do have some choices, at least in a democratic govt, you can try and elect someone who will lower taxes for example. So there's an element of theft I suppose but it'd be disingenuous to call it out-and-out theft.

Actualy, it isn't. Taking money forcefully from the people is already theft. And even though you get something, it would be much simpler just to pay them when you need the service.

It's like being robbed by a crackhead, but hey, at least he gets to eat right?, (or just feed his addiction)
The cause is irrelevant, the issue is the means.
It's not voluntary, it's compulsory, via coercion

Yeah, I know. That is what I meant when I said that taxation is forcefully taking money from the people.

[Upper North Yorkshire]

if you're that upset about being taxed then dont earn anything

[Lelouche]

if you're that upset about being taxed then dont earn anything

Right because "choosing to be poor to avoid taxes" is also a viable option

I suppose in a welfare state you could do that
but that would be very hypocritical.

[Great Nepal]

if you're that upset about being taxed then dont earn anything

Or go to somalia.

[Lelouche]

if you're that upset about being taxed then dont earn anything

Or go to somalia.

Or you know, Rebel against tyranny
all valid options, regardless of whether or not other's find them acceptable

[Abdju]

Scam isn't intended a literal of legal term. More akin to what you might call "honest profiteering". I.e. buying something on the cheap, jacking up access charges and raking in money whilst running the system into the ground then dumping it back on the cheap.

However, this doesn't address dissatisfaction rather than orgasmic delight when people have their services flogged off. There is no evidence that privatisation is wildly popular or that the masses beg for muni services and infrastructure to be sold off. I have presented cases that have all shown this. Where is the evidence that suggests otherwise?

I mean, let suppose I have, let say, a company making school bags. If I set up my business in a place where slavery was legal, I could easily sell each bag for $4 without thinking about the labour as all labour is slavery. But in a free market, anyone can choose where they want towork. With my very same company there, if there is a need of three workers to make one bag, each bag takes half an hour to make and if supply and demand system demands me to pay the minimum of $5 an hour, then I have to pay that amount as a minimum. If I pay below, less people would want to work at my company. My business would then fail. Don't you see? Your 'evidence' is something that would happen only when government comes into play. Because if the minimum wage is $6 and hour, but I can only aford $5 an hour for my workers and if no other company is hiring, then wouldn't all the workers in my company bcome unemployed?

[Abdju]

if you're that upset about being taxed then dont earn anything

Or go to somalia.

Or you know, Rebel against tyranny
all valid options, regardless of whether or not other's find them acceptable

Rebel all you want, but don't come complaining if you get arrested and/or shot. Personally, I'd just say you had it coming and should have known better....

[Dyakovo]

No it doesn't, all you are capable of doing is casting dispersions about our "True motives" when in reality there is no way you could know such a thing

Sure there is. I read your posts.

[Lelouche]

No it doesn't, all you are capable of doing is casting dispersions about our "True motives" when in reality there is no way you could know such a thing

Sure there is. I read your posts.

and from the "We object to statism and don't believe the ends justify the means" you get "We want all these benefits we didn't ask for, but we don't want to pay for them" ?

That's interesting logic you have there
Faulty, incorrect logic
but interesting nonetheless.

[Sungai Pusat]

Scam isn't intended a literal of legal term. More akin to what you might call "honest profiteering". I.e. buying something on the cheap, jacking up access charges and raking in money whilst running the system into the ground then dumping it back on the cheap.

However, this doesn't address dissatisfaction rather than orgasmic delight when people have their services flogged off. There is no evidence that privatisation is wildly popular or that the masses beg for muni services and infrastructure to be sold off. I have presented cases that have all shown this. Where is the evidence that suggests otherwise?

I mean, let suppose I have, let say, a company making school bags. If I set up my business in a place where slavery was legal, I could easily sell each bag for $4 without thinking about the labour as all labour is slavery. But in a free market, anyone can choose where they want towork. With my very same company there, if there is a need of three workers to make one bag, each bag takes half an hour to make and if supply and demand system demands me to pay the minimum of $5 an hour, then I have to pay that amount as a minimum. If I pay below, less people would want to work at my company. My business would then fail. Don't you see? Your 'evidence' is something that would happen only when government comes into play. Because if the minimum wage is $6 and hour, but I can only aford $5 an hour for my workers and if no other company is hiring, then wouldn't all the workers in my company bcome unemployed?

[Sungai Pusat]

Scam isn't intended a literal of legal term. More akin to what you might call "honest profiteering". I.e. buying something on the cheap, jacking up access charges and raking in money whilst running the system into the ground then dumping it back on the cheap.

However, this doesn't address dissatisfaction rather than orgasmic delight when people have their services flogged off. There is no evidence that privatisation is wildly popular or that the masses beg for muni services and infrastructure to be sold off. I have presented cases that have all shown this. Where is the evidence that suggests otherwise?

I mean, let suppose I have, let say, a company making school bags. If I set up my business in a place where slavery was legal, I could easily sell each bag for $4 without thinking about the labour as all labour is slavery. But in a free market, anyone can choose where they want towork. With my very same company there, if there is a need of three workers to make one bag, each bag takes half an hour to make and if supply and demand system demands me to pay the minimum of $5 an hour, then I have to pay that amount as a minimum. If I pay below, less people would want to work at my company. My business would then fail. Don't you see? Your 'evidence' is something that would happen only when government comes into play. Because if the minimum wage is $6 and hour, but I can only aford $5 an hour for my workers and if no other company is hiring, then wouldn't all the workers in my company bcome unemployed?

[MisanthropicPopulism]

eh, it's not theft if you agree to it. Unfortunately, there's not many options to not agree to it anymore- anybody know of somewhere you can live where you don't have to be taxed? I suppose in the sense that there's virtually no where to live that isn't governed, so you can't really be free, it is a sort of enslavement.
It's also sort of like saying that a parent making their kid do the dishes is enslaving them. I mean, you're getting something for your taxes- firemen, for one thing. And an army that sometimes does horrible things you don't agree with, but also is there to keep horrible things you don't agree with from happening to you. And welfare so you'll never starve and you don't have to die of a curable disease. So it's not really theft because you're paying for a service, albeit begrudgingly and out of fear of imprisonment.
And anyway you do have some choices, at least in a democratic govt, you can try and elect someone who will lower taxes for example. So there's an element of theft I suppose but it'd be disingenuous to call it out-and-out theft.

Actualy, it isn't. Taking money forcefully from the people is already theft. And even though you get something, it would be much simpler just to pay them when you need the service.

Services among which many wouldn't exist without group need. Or without some other profit motive for the company. You know who is going to pave a road out into the sticks to your house? No god damn one.

[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.

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?).

Massive logic fail. Both would go down. Or did you miss the part where I said legalizing drug decreases drug use. How the fuck is drug related crime going to go up, when use goes down?

[Sibirsky]

Why are you ignoring my statist problems question?

sorry thought I covered it, where is it?

Oh. Denying failure and any of it's problems is your solution. That's so... statist.

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?

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?

And that's why I ask how much is enough. Because $4 trillion is obviously not enough. You need more. Here's a clue for you DaWoad, throwing money at the problem, doesn't make it go away.

[Sibirsky]

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 bank made him default? They colluded with his employer to fire him? So they could foreclose on his house? So they could lose half of their investment? That's brilliant!

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.

As, I and others have pointed out, you have to pay taxes to leave, and pay taxes anywhere you go.

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.

On what land? If he buys the land he has to pay property taxes. Or he is trespassing.

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.

The man has family, friends and there are homeless shelters. Tough shit. I don't see how defaulting on your mortgage entitles you to steal.

[Sibirsky]

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.

Incorrect. We're pointing out how being forced to pay for the costs, whether you use the benefits or not is theft, and how those benefits could alternatively be provided.

[Sibirsky]

if you're that upset about being taxed then dont earn anything

[Sibirsky]

if you're that upset about being taxed then dont earn anything

Or go to somalia.

They have taxes.

[Abdju]

Well, I know that.

Know it from where? Where did you read it, or was it a Road to Damascus type thing?

Just do the maths and you'd get why people would prefer privatised services over public ones: Because it is more cheaper and since the class size is smaller, it is bound to be more efficient.

People already have actual privatised services, and I have shown many examples where people do not "prefer" them. All you have shown so far, is your personal hypothesis is that people "would" prefer them (this must make you psychic, as it's not even "might"), even though most people don't prefer it now, and haven't done ever since the whole privateering thing first took off.