Income Taxes: Are They Theft?

[New England and The Maritimes]

This is stopped by... what? The same thing that stopped the Assyrians from wiping out Akkad?

There are privatized institutions which can handle such things. Privatized courts are not an absent thought amongst Anarcho-capitalists.

And before you claim it's private industry and that is such a bad idea, remember that private industry is not a static beast, but many competitive institutions.

Institutions said to arise naturally from human behavior in aggregate, which failed to stop proto-states from rising up through violence and coercion from before history began. I won't buy this snake oil. Your plan is to replace the current democratic state with a series of worse ones amid total chaos and urban bloodshed not seen in over a century.

[Laissez-Faire]

There are privatized institutions which can handle such things. Privatized courts are not an absent thought amongst Anarcho-capitalists.

And before you claim it's private industry and that is such a bad idea, remember that private industry is not a static beast, but many competitive institutions.

Institutions said to arise naturally from human behavior in aggregate, which failed to stop proto-states from rising up through violence and coercion from before history began. I won't buy this snake oil. Your plan is to replace the current democratic state with a series of worse ones amid total chaos and urban bloodshed not seen in over a century.

Anarchy =/= disorder

[New England and The Maritimes]

Institutions said to arise naturally from human behavior in aggregate, which failed to stop proto-states from rising up through violence and coercion from before history began. I won't buy this snake oil. Your plan is to replace the current democratic state with a series of worse ones amid total chaos and urban bloodshed not seen in over a century.

Anarchy =/= disorder

Disorder is guaranteed when people start putting the squeeze on each other for a fast buck. Your only response to the problem of coercion and nobody strong enough to claim a monopoly is "BUT MONOPOLIES DONT EXIST!"

You're sticking your fingers in your ears and talking in circles, and it's not helping your argument.

[Laissez-Faire]

Anarchy =/= disorder

Disorder is guaranteed when people start putting the squeeze on each other for a fast buck. Your only response to the problem of coercion and nobody strong enough to claim a monopoly is "BUT MONOPOLIES DONT EXIST!"

You're sticking your fingers in your ears and talking in circles, and it's not helping your argument.

Like you are doing any different about the innate protection of commonalities by government insofar as it's institutions.

It is true that monopolies stand to exist because of their incorporation by government. They face innate challenge in a free market, and by competition. Licensing and regulations only block this, for the good of no one but the elite.

Taxation just as similarly takes away income and opportunities from people, stifling growth and potential of a free market.

[The USOT]

Wait, you are saying there are no rights which the state can protect?

Ok here is an example, presuming I live in an anarcho capitalist society.

I am a business man who for whatever reason is crooked. Needing more money, I decide to extort money from my clients through threats of violence (using a private security firm which will take any contract). Now I calculate the costs of the money I take very carefully. Enough so the guy im extorting can live and keep earning money, but could in no way afford a private security force or justice himself.
Now how does someone who cannot afford defence under private means obtain the right to safety and freedom that has been denied to them?

Coercion of contract is not supported under an anarcho-capitalistic system. I believe that's quite basic.

But that doesnt answer my question. I can have an ideology called Niceism where its theoreticians support a perfect economy ran by fluffy bunnies, doesnt mean it will happen.

Likewise, the existance of a society does not mean that everybody within said society will be 100% compliant with its founding theoreticians. The fact that anarcho capitalists exist is evidence of that.

Now without saying "it wont happen because anarcho capitalists dont support coercion", how would that be prevented with normal, apolitical people involved?

[Laissez-Faire]

Coercion of contract is not supported under an anarcho-capitalistic system. I believe that's quite basic.

But that doesnt answer my question. I can have an ideology called Niceism where its theoreticians support a perfect economy ran by fluffy bunnies, doesnt mean it will happen.

Likewise, the existance of a society does not mean that everybody within said society will be 100% compliant with its founding theoreticians. The fact that anarcho capitalists exist is evidence of that.

Now without saying "it wont happen because anarcho capitalists dont support coercion", how would that be prevented with normal, apolitical people involved?

Of course not.

I am afraid I cannot cite past precedent to any detail, simply because anarcho-capitalism is well known to have never been attempted in any society to any great length. Quite frankly, there is no unified idea about how to handle institutions.

I have my ideas, others have theirs. Quite similar to many other societal concepts.

[The USOT]

But that doesnt answer my question. I can have an ideology called Niceism where its theoreticians support a perfect economy ran by fluffy bunnies, doesnt mean it will happen.

Likewise, the existance of a society does not mean that everybody within said society will be 100% compliant with its founding theoreticians. The fact that anarcho capitalists exist is evidence of that.

Now without saying "it wont happen because anarcho capitalists dont support coercion", how would that be prevented with normal, apolitical people involved?

Of course not.

I am afraid I cannot cite past precedent to any detail, simply because anarcho-capitalism is well known to have never been attempted in any society to any great length. Quite frankly, there is no unified idea about how to handle institutions.

I have my ideas, others have theirs. Quite similar to many other societal concepts.

And what would those ideas be? My critique as such was that this is way in which the state can protect a freedom that could be infringed upon without a state. If my issue is not solved, then surely we must admit (to the best of our abilities) that there are indeed some ways in which the state can protect a freedom?

[United Dependencies]

This is stopped by... what? The same thing that stopped the Assyrians from wiping out Akkad?

There are privatized institutions which can handle such things. Privatized courts are not an absent thought amongst Anarcho-capitalists.

And before you claim it's private industry and that is such a bad idea, remember that private industry is not a static beast, but many competitive institutions.

What happens when I refuse to abide by the decisions of your privatized court? Afterall, you can't make me agree to arbitration.

[United Dependencies]

I am afraid I cannot cite past precedent to any detail, simply because anarcho-capitalism is well known to have never been attempted in any society to any great length. Quite frankly, there is no unified idea about how to handle institutions.

So you have no prior evidence that would suggest that your system of government can work, but you're certain that it just will?

[Norstal]

Institutions said to arise naturally from human behavior in aggregate, which failed to stop proto-states from rising up through violence and coercion from before history began. I won't buy this snake oil. Your plan is to replace the current democratic state with a series of worse ones amid total chaos and urban bloodshed not seen in over a century.

Anarchy =/= disorder

No monopoly of violence means everyone can get their share of violence.

Or are you saying that there will be no violence at all? In which case, hahaha, good luck with that one.

[Arbites]

It is true that monopolies stand to exist because of their incorporation by government. They face innate challenge in a free market, and by competition. Licensing and regulations only block this, for the good of no one but the elite.

Taxation just as similarly takes away income and opportunities from people, stifling growth and potential of a free market.

Do you know what else can take away income and opportunities from people? An arrow in the knee A machete wielded by a desperate mugger in a society where money is the only way to guarantee survival.

[Natapoc]

It is true that monopolies stand to exist because of their incorporation by government. They face innate challenge in a free market, and by competition. Licensing and regulations only block this, for the good of no one but the elite.

Taxation just as similarly takes away income and opportunities from people, stifling growth and potential of a free market.

Do you know what else can take away income and opportunities from people? An arrow in the knee A machete wielded by a desperate mugger in a society where money is the only way to guarantee survival.

Fear the one with nothing to lose.

[Gravlen]

There are privatized institutions which can handle such things. Privatized courts are not an absent thought amongst Anarcho-capitalists.

Tell me more about how privatized courts can stop coercion of contract. For starters, why would the company in question decide to submit to the jurisdiction of that private court?

[Aeronos]

Likewise, the existance of a society does not mean that everybody within said society will be 100% compliant with its founding theoreticians. The fact that anarcho capitalists exist is evidence of that.

Well duh. That's supposed to be a criticism of it? Anarcho-capitalism pretty forms the purest of voluntarist systems; people can follow whatever they want, just so long as it's voluntary (unforced). Anarcho-capitalists believe in private justice, so...

[Vecherd]

Income taxes, indeed all types of taxes are theft. Nothing but mafioso business, all politicians that enforce taxes or want to have taxes are thieves that should be severely punished.

Politicians high up in the system think they are worth more than other people and that they also are more important than non-politicians. How can we know this? Politicians have security guards, bulletproof cars, all conveniently payed by the people of the nation.

[The Black Forrest]

Income taxes, indeed all types of taxes are theft. Nothing but mafioso business, all politicians that enforce taxes or want to have taxes are thieves that should be severely punished.

Drama queen much?

Politicians high up in the system think they are worth more than other people and that they also are more important than non-politicians. How can we know this? Politicians have security guards, bulletproof cars, all conveniently payed by the people of the nation.

Hate to break it to you but quite a few 1%ers think they are worth more and are more important then everybody else.

I went to school with well....what would be 1%ers in the area and they though they were a superior life form. They acted like they were the ones who made grandfathers or great-grandfathers money.

The ones who tended to be ok where the children of people who started with little or nothing........

[Gravlen]

Income taxes, indeed all types of taxes are theft. Nothing but mafioso business, all politicians that enforce taxes or want to have taxes are thieves that should be severely punished.

Politicians high up in the system think they are worth more than other people and that they also are more important than non-politicians. How can we know this? Politicians have security guards, bulletproof cars, all conveniently payed by the people of the nation.

Of course, not all politicians have or want security guards... Nevermind the fact that many recieve death threats, and that some have been attacked and killed due to being politicians.

So I don't see your point. Should they not get protection if they're threatened?

[Trotskylvania]

What bothers me is that this meaningless, groundless semantic argument is actually considered a serious point of contention by libertarians.

Kant's ghost still haunts us, because we're spending more time arguing the strict interpretation of universal moral law then actually considering whether such axioms would even be beneficial to people.

[The USOT]

Likewise, the existance of a society does not mean that everybody within said society will be 100% compliant with its founding theoreticians. The fact that anarcho capitalists exist is evidence of that.

Well duh. That's supposed to be a criticism of it?

No, and you would know that if you read the rest of my post. The part you quoted is taken entirely out of context.

The critique is the ability for extortion to render private legal systems impossible, to which nobody has yet given me a proper answer as to why it would not happen other than "Oh anarcho capitalists are against coercion so nobody in the society would coerce anyone".

[Distruzio]

Wait, you are saying there are no rights which the state can protect?

Ok here is an example, presuming I live in an anarcho capitalist society.

I am a business man who for whatever reason is crooked. Needing more money, I decide to extort money from my clients through threats of violence (using a private security firm which will take any contract). Now I calculate the costs of the money I take very carefully. Enough so the guy im extorting can live and keep earning money, but could in no way afford a private security force or justice himself.
Now how does someone who cannot afford defence under private means obtain the right to safety and freedom that has been denied to them?

I am saying that rights are protected in spite of the State. But this, while related, threatens to derail the thread. So I'll make a new thread regarding this topic.

Here you go: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=166592

[The Black Forrest]

What bothers me is that this meaningless, groundless semantic argument is actually considered a serious point of contention by libertarians.

Kant's ghost still haunts us, because we're spending more time arguing the strict interpretation of universal moral law then actually considering whether such axioms would even be beneficial to people.

That's the thing of it. Morality is a good foil as it's so malleable to the situation.

[New Conglomerate]

What bothers me is that this meaningless, groundless semantic argument is actually considered a serious point of contention by libertarians.

Kant's ghost still haunts us, because we're spending more time arguing the strict interpretation of universal moral law then actually considering whether such axioms would even be beneficial to people.

The irony being that they would immediately switch to utilitarian arguments if they were in the majority.