CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
To a certain extent, it sure as hell can be. Yes, taxes are necessary for maintaining the state (security). But then there's an over amount of taxation that IS theft. The government seems to think that if you're alive and doing things that living people do, you must be taxed for it.
Hell, you get taxed for dying. You get taxed for buying shelter. You get taxed for buying transportation. Taxed for having a job. Taxed for buying shit. Taxed for just about anything these days.
One of the reasons why I hate the whole "legalize it and tax it" arguments. Taxing things seems to be so mainstream now a days that even stoners want their pot to be taxed.
if a man comes up to you on the streets and says give me your money. you would say no. if he comes back and with a threat, and you scared, paid him you would consider it robbery and theft. now if this man forms a group of people and call them selves the IRS and say that all people have to pay to this group or face consequences, does it still make it theft?
yes
no matter how many people steal does it make it right?
no a robber is a robber, statistics does not make right. we don't live in the world of Orwell's 1984.
it is wrong for a man or group to take you hard earnings, regardless if it s for good or not. if the gov wants to help the poor, it should set up charities, not forcefully take money form others to help them. a noble end does not justify a illegally wrong means. period.
While I'm no fan of government or our government especially, this is a gross oversimplification. The final man is not simply some random person with no authority. You, the voter, have a (small) amount of control over the tax system. In exchange for all citizens paying taxes, the government provides benefits and uses it to, you know, govern. You probably vote, so I assume you want to be governed?
Is this the best system? No. But it's not theft if there is collective authorization to take the money. If you find that too terrible, I encourage you to give up every single government benefit and challenge the government on that. Good luck, if you really bother. I doubt it.
can you name a government benefit that has helped and progressed your life being?
if so, imagine that same service, privatized, meaning instead of one monopolized service. you have numerous ones competing to get you to join their social service. when there is competition for clients, benefits tend to increase.
its like in bidding, it starts at 100, then it goes up to say maybe 500. but with government interference the cap price is say 110 and they have the choice of increasing or decreasing it because they monopolized it.
Doesn't matter. Most people support taxes and authorize the taking of the money by the government. If you disagree, you are able to campaign, disobey, vote, or opt out entirely (and by that I mean the typical conservative argument of "if you don't like it get out!").
Of course if it's supported it doesn't mean it's right. It does mean, however, that you're a citizen of a government and because it's a democratic form of government, you have to deal with what the majority rules.
Don't like it? Hey, now you know how gay people feel!
Because you choose to opt in to the government (by not opting), you opt in with all the benefits and problems that come with it. The government is not technically stealing from you because you as part of the voting mass gave consent.
Most of us do not ever choose to opt into the government, a social contract is a nice theory but inaccurate model without a viable escape clause existing in actuality. We are born into government with little means to escape it, in many ways the government, gangs, and mafias operate the same; by threat and force. They will take away your property, and they will take away your life either piecewise in prisons or all at once with a gun.It is often times join them and suffer under them, or try to travel to a place without them, but all the world is owned, and all the world is claimed: government you can not escape (not permanently, temporar'y yes). Government should be nothing more then an expedient, many of the same objections against a standing army can be made against a standing government unfortunately a standing government, stands everywhere. we may be born naturally freemen, but as soon as we are out of the womb chains fiercely grab at us and though out our lives we have little means to cast them off. It is natural to resent these chains, even if some of them are currently necessary, for without them much worse ones would clamp on. Unfortunately some people think their chains are the only things holding them up sometimes, never thinking that they are also the very reason they are so tired. Democratic processes can be as evil as any process of government, but evil can sometimes be a means of good.
Theft is illegal, government defines what is legal; so unless the government defines itself as a illegal entity(which it won't do) it technically isn't theft. Taxation has benefits, so long as these benefits outweigh its problems is it not desirable?
Poor people and rural areas weren't able to pay for fire protection, and as a result either had no help when a fire did happen or if possible formed their own volunteer, community sponsored fire-stations. Stopping People from becoming homeless and stopping fires from spreading is in the best interest of the entire community. fire can leap from house to house when uncontrolled and in large crammed cities can result in thousands of homeless which then puts a larger strain on everyone. If the local mechanics garage burns up in a small town, the next one is miles and miles away and its in the interest of everyone who owns a car or a tractor to make sure it doesn't burn, i can continue. People are more focused on the short term though, and likly will put off on what is necessary in the long run(since short term expenses seem more urgent) and thus things like fire-stations won't be properly funded with only donations, and having firefighting be private leads to problems; it seems taxes are the best means of gathering funds for firefighting. At least to a certain extent, my family has a lot of firefighters in it and the volunteer fire-station many of them were a part of held bake sales and festivals to make money; once a year there is a awesome fish fry but I doubt those actives are close to covering what they need to cover in order for the station to operate. Those activies just bring in a little extra, i can ask my uncle, he was the firechief for awhile. Maybe a mixture of entrepreneurship and taxes is best, i'm not sure how much the fish fry saves the town in taxes if any.
Privatized armies and police would have to be tightly regulated by the community(government of some-type, avoiding mob rule but still democratic) and their services unavailable to individuals or else they would result in the market(money) and not weather someone is seriously violating rights, determining who gets the gun pointed at them. I would rather have a police force, with all its problems, then mercenaries taking their commands from the highest bidder.Also If you have the guns, you don't need money; and these mercenary groups would take over and act as a tyrannical government and likly wage wars for territory/capital. The free market would quickly be gone, and mercenaries would be our rulers.
so far the best argument against me. Finlay instead of the whole, i am baby and like gov doing every thing for me, i get a reasonable response to why it may be hard. but yet i must dispute you on some things.
i am a conservative libertarian. meaning i believe in if necessary, minimal government. what i want would be a centralized protection force and representative for us. thats all. thats all we need gov for.
yes you are right, there's the chance of people resulting to mercenary warfare. but what you realize. is that the second the army is used to infringe on people's rights. its no longer libertarianism, its government. the problem libertarians face, is to stop people from returning to government thinking. using the army to make people obey me, is a government type thinker. a libertarian thinker would not think of using the army for selfish purpose, because we believe in only ruling our self's, some thing we can barley do, so there fore we our entirely uninterested in telling some one else how to rule theirs.
being a libertarian requires intense maturity and responsibility, only a ideology for people who really want progress and freedom.
It would have to be in everyones immediate and clear self-interest not to resort to government-type thinking. The material conditions are such that coercion is more profitable and useful then most alternatives. I think for anarchy to work, at least basic necessitates would have to have a very decentralized production system or ones where democracy is inherent in the production methods. Right now because of economies of scale it is much more profitable to have monolithic production methods which result in power imbalances. So long as there is a check or balance against this power imbalance it can work out pretty nicely for everyone. Democratic government is this check against these economic imbalances. Eventually i want it to be unnecessary, which means the means of production will need to change. They currently are, the computer your at is one of those production methods necessary for an anarchist society. Now we need to make it so some other production methods shares some of computing qualties, the market is currently driving this change and i hope it won't be long till we have things like desktop manufacturing, and effective renewable energy systems everywhere among many other things. Government should also help kickstart things which are not economically feasible for a company at the moment, like it did with the internet and space exploration.
A system must be based on more then morality, it must be based on self-intrest. So long as coercion is advantageous, and it will be intill every individual is mostly independent, coercion will occur.
(1984-creepy disturbing book :) ) Sure, if you look at it that way, I guess you could say theft is wrong, but I don't consider it to be theft. The government is not just using your money to help the poor, but you as well. They provide the roads you drive on, the police force you call when someone is breaking into your house, the fire department, the army to protect you, the list goes on and on. Poor or not, as a citizen, you need these things.
i don't entirely support you. that is, if water stopped coming into your house, wouldn't you pay some one to bring it back? thats the thing, make services private, this encourages competition and always for more reliable services because the company is paid by the people on their success.
but in government they don't give a damn if you get no water or to much. they tax you the same. if companies became local and sufficient for our needs, we would not need a government official 3000 miles away telling us what to do with our money. theft is theft.
if we liked taxation then it would not be called that, it would be called donation. which if the government needed, for say security i would be happy to give according to what i think i feel giving, not the standard they put on you and punish you for if you don't fallow it.
I grew up in a small town of 5000 people, so it was impossible to maintain a strong local public government, which means all police service was done by the county and town government really didn't have many responsible except roads.
Furthermore, water service is already private, except that non profitable.
Water utilities is considered as natural monopoly. Therefore, the water was owned by a private company but it was heavily regulated by the government either state or county.
So, yes, private ownership of the water utility was beneficial because it provided water yet at a discounted price because it was still regulated by the government.
lol. we won the debate, look at the chart, more people say its theft then not, so why does it say that taxation is not theft when more people agree it is?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that everyone paid separately for all utilities including water. You may have to pay some taxes in order to get the pipes fixed or something, but you pay for the water that goes into your house.
I was down voted by someone without any dispute being written? o.O
Well, I suppose anonymous cowardice is the next best thing to proactively announcing ones ignorance and stupidity like an inbred walrus ardently crying its mating call...
If you had no welfare, that would massively cause wages to drive down despite the fact that we would have to pay for loads of things we don't already, such as schools being private, roads being private etc. This would lead to massive increase in crime but no police force, and reduced people going to school would cause on the long term, literacy rates to drop and on the short term, people not being able to have qualifications, so despite being incredibly pro-rich people, it is as anti-aspiration as you can get. A decreased literacy rate and more uneducated people would lead to people only being able to offer manual labour jobs and the inability to rise up the social ladder due to decreased education opportunities would drive down wages further meaning higher cost of living, and any extra money in tax is lost through decreased wages. This again creates mass poverty, mass crime which damages businesses so even rich people would suffer financially as a result of this. This in in addition to all the public sector workers losing their jobs offering extra supply to the private sector pushing down wages further in addition to all the damage from an increased unemployment rate on the short term. No taxes would only give the illusion of more money.
It is also not legalized theft as for taxes like income, you only pay if you "voluntarily" get a job; VAT, you only pay if you "voluntarily" buy the goods; Stamp Duty, Only if you "voluntarily" buy a house; Corporationtax, no-one forced you to have a business etc
The prompt is in essence an oxymoron, and slightly a paradox. There is no such thing as legalized theft because theft is illegal. I guess the question is really asking whether or not taxes are good. And for that, like most things, I believe the key is moderation. (I'm not going to go into specifics.)
It is basicly. When you get your paycheack you are not realy paid for the work you did because the government already took out some money and i'm not talkin alittel i mean for some people they lose alittle less then half. so wrong .that's like every month some one comes and steals your hard erned money.
Yes taxes is one way that the corrupt government steals from our wallets as governments continue to sink deeper into trillions of more dollars in debt!!!
over taxation is theft to me the government is getting billions to spend on whatever they need while the economy is struggling .we don't control our government they control us were slaves to them. Americas not free we pay everyday its better than most places but far from good
How... can... anyone even deny this? even from a purely definitional standpoint this is true. The mob... er "government" force you to give them your money or they will kidnap you and place you in their prisons, and if you don't let them kidnap you they will kill you.
Taking money under the threat of violence, you can call it "legal" or "moral" all you want, but even the most pro-state nut-job can see this is theft.
even from a purely definitional standpoint this is true.
Taxation is by definition not theft.
Taking money under the threat of violence, you can call it "legal" or "moral" all you want, but even the most pro-state nut-job can see this is theft.
Force or violence are actually a secondary issues, since theft can occur without either. So you're going to have to actually explain why taxation is equivalent to theft, when taxation is required of participating members of a modern society i.e. by remaining in said society, one tacitly agrees to being taxed, you are complicit in your own theft, which is equally paradoxical of the terminological problems of "legal theft".
but see, you agree to pay the government money, that is not taxation, it is donation. that is how our government worked before the civil war, no U.S citizen was ever taxed, but encouraged to pay denotations to support it. but now, i am a product of the government, they forcible take my money or i am put into jail for it.
and you say that being a citizen i am obliged to pay a unfair tax against my own will? Germans becoming citizens of Hitlers Germany who did not except the prosecution of Jews were praised by us, but denounced by their ruler? so were they not really German citizens then? and so on because the society says its OK, it makes it? i want to reform society and remind people. theft of earned goods is wrong.
my question is this, how can any one take my earned profits against my own free will and think its OK? if you can answer that then well, i guess I'm out of support for my argument.
amazing how you still failed to answer my question. is it or is it not true, that if i do not pay taxes, i can have my assets sized forcible and be sent to jail. if so, then it is theft.
unit money says, this is government property or an allowance we give citizens of America that when demanded, it must be given back when called upon, my money i earn and then taken away is still theft.
you said that taxation is not theft and that being a citizen of America, its my obligation to pay it.
again i proved you wrong and when i asked my question in the previous post you ignored it. so ether you don't read the post before you write or you or avoiding the question knowing i am right.
wow, again i have to say this? if a German did not like Hitlers rule, then yes he could of left, or he could of fought against his evilness. instead of being a hermit i plan to reform government and convince people that taxation is legalized theft.
Way to hit the million dollar question. We have a winner. This is only what I have been advocating since the beginning. "Government is not the solution to our problems, government IS the problem," -Ronald Reagan.
And of course there can be government without taxes, what do you think we had before the Civil War? Guess what? NO TAXES! Go re-take history and get your facts straight before you try and sound intelligent.
Maybe you should get your facts straight. According to Wikipedia "Tariffs were the largest source of federal revenue from the 1790s to the eve of World War I, until they were surpassed by income taxes." The civil war was in the 1860's and tariffs were around way before then. The government was getting funded by, well what do ya know, taxes.
Tariffs are usually associated with protectionism, the economic policy of restraining trade between nations. For political reasons, tariffs are usually imposed on imported goods, although they may also be imposed on exported goods.
you our so ignorant. next time read the info before you use it as a argument.
taxation and tariffs our different. and guess what you supported my argument. since the government did not tax to the civil war, they got most of their money on taxing good being imported to the country. different form taxing citizens, so again, go retake history.
You are correct, there weren't any income taxes in the United States before the civil war, but there were taxes. I never specified which type of taxes I was speaking about, nor does the debate. The United States government was funded, partially, through taxation.
Why are you so quick to call someone ignorant? Maybe you should go back to grammar class:you our so ignorant. When you begin a sentence, it starts with a capital letter: next time read the info before you use it as a(supposed to be an) argument.
I guess I understand where you're coming from when you're saying that the government is taking your earnings, but would you rather we not have all of the services the government provides for us from what they take? Where would the money to pay for all of those things come from if not from those using the services?
Lolz. Why? Because it's "legalized"? I'm sure I can pull up just as many definitions of theft they say nothing of law as you can referring to law.
Besides, just because the people stealing from you call it "legal" doesn't change what they're doing. It's like the difference between murder and an execution. You can argue that one is more "moral" than the other until you're blue in the face (well, maybe not you per say) but the act is the same and I'm all for calling a spade a spade.
"Taxation is by definition not theft."
Define taxation (in your own words).
"Force or violence are actually a secondary issues, since theft can occur without either."
Note the word "threat". ;)
"So you're going to have to actually explain why taxation is equivalent to theft, when taxation is required of participating members of a modern society"
"one tacitly agrees to being taxed, you are complicit in your own theft,"
I have a pretty good feeling that if the threat of not paying taxes went from jail time/ being murdered to nothing, a lot less people would be paying taxes.
I've yet to meet a person whom likes paying taxes and if taxes were not mandatory it would only be a few years at most until everyone stopped paying them.
I'd like to see just how much everyone agrees to taxation when there are no guns in the room ;)
Not just that. Taxation requires implied and informed consent. Theft omits both.
I'm sure I can pull up just as many definitions of theft they say nothing of law as you can referring to law.
So can I. But, this seems somewhat irrelevant because it's not the referring to its illegality, but the omission of consent that makes it theft and distinguishes theft from, for example, a loan or taxation.
You can argue that one is more "moral" than the other until you're blue in the face (well, maybe not you per say) but the act is the same and I'm all for calling a spade a spade.
I've never once made a moral argument in this debate. So I don't see why I would start now or why you're bringing the initial point up. But a tax and theft are two different things
Define taxation (in your own words).
A levied charge on human activity i.e. a poll tax, that is charged in exchange for the ability to vote.
Note the word "threat". ;)
It was. "Threat" of force, for example, is redundant, since force sociopolitically (and legally) refers to power that is exerted in order to make some thing happen.
You assume taxation is needed. This is NOT true.
No, I don't. And the video you linked makes a fairly shallow argument for the "superiority" of private ownership, particularly when it comes to roads, and the author's argument of ought-to-is in terms of efficiency when it comes to schools - it's a very Randian argument that does not follow (see followup below).
(for instance, the author of the video omits the fact that the number of companies required to privatize roads would vary depending on the size of the city and the cost of the land to construct and maintain those roads. The amount being paid to each company would also vary disproportionally with no guaranteed increase in utils. Moreover, the cost of use is assumed to be equivalent to the tax-amount and provided as if you'd only be paying it once, instead of every month or every use of the service. So you could arguably (as demonstrated by toll-roads) have to pay $100 every time you use a road to no necessary increase in utils, depending on how much traffic the road sees as well as the particular owning company's cost of maintenance.)
(Also, the fact that a private school, in the author's example, would have to be roughly twice as efficient (I'm not sure what that means in education) as a public school to justify its cost of service (being an order of magnitude higher than a public school) does not mean that the service is more efficient than that of a public school.)
I have a pretty good feeling that if the threat of not paying taxes went from jail time/ being murdered to nothing, a lot less people would be paying taxes....
Well, "being murdered" is a little extreme, since not paying taxes isn't a capital offense. And murder is an illegal action, not a legal one. Please stop conflating legal and illegal activity.
I've yet to meet a person whom likes paying taxes and if taxes were not mandatory it would only be a few years at most until everyone stopped paying them.
It's not about liking it.
I'd like to see just how much everyone agrees to taxation when there are no guns in the room.
We could make this same argument for almost any legal issue.
"Not just that. Taxation requires implied and informed consent. Theft omits both."
So as long as I consent to letting them take my money it's no longer theft? That's like saying the little old lady who gives up her purse to a mugger in exchange for not being beaten to death wasn't robbed because she "consented" to it.
Sure I consent to paying taxes, but only because it's either that or prison/death.
Sure, you may define theft as the use of force to extract goods and money as opposed to the threat of force to extract goods an money, but then you'd just be arguing semantics.
"So can I. But, this seems somewhat irrelevant because it's not the referring to its illegality, but the omission of consent that makes it theft and distinguishes theft from, for example, a loan or taxation."
The difference is, with a loan you won't be kidnapped and thrown in prison for not making one, but with taxation you don't have a choice. You have to pay whether you even want government services or not.
"I've never once made a moral argument in this debate. So I don't see why I would start now or why you're bringing the initial point up."
Well, thank science for that. I was beginning to think everyone on here is some sort of heavy moralist or another.
"But a tax and theft are two different things"
Only if you define theft as the use of force (to extract whatever) as opposed to the threat of force.
Does it really make that much of a difference to you, though, whether the money is paid before the guns come out or after?
Either way, the government is using violence as a tool to extract funding from persons.
"A levied charge on human activity i.e. a poll tax, that is charged in exchange for the ability to vote."
And if I don't want this ability to vote, or any state run service for that matter, is it still not theft then?
"It was. "Threat" of force, for example, is redundant, since force sociopolitically (and legally) refers to power that is exerted in order to make some thing happen. "
Precisely. It's redundant. It doesn't matter whether the money is extracted through the use of force or the threat of force, it's the exact same thing in principle and that is why I call it theft.
Legalized theft perhaps, but theft all the same.
"No, I don't."
Oh? Are you some sort of anarchist? Or is it that you KNOW taxation is needed? Hmm?
Well, go on. School me on the merits of taxation.
"And the video you linked makes a fairly shallow argument for the "superiority" of private ownership"
Alright, there's a lot we could debate about in what you've written in those 3 paragraphs, but for simplicities sake I'm going to agree to disagree for the time being and move on.
If you're really itching to debate those points, however, the video's author is always looking for someone to debate.
"Well, "being murdered" is a little extreme, since not paying taxes isn't a capital offense. And murder is an illegal action, not a legal one. Please stop conflating legal and illegal activity."
Oh, jeez =/
Alright so say you don't pay your taxes. You may get a letter, then a few more. Then an officer will come to your home for the money, if you still don't pay you will be given a date to show up to court. If you still refuse to pay (or just don't show up) you will be arrested. If you don't let them arrest you, you will be killed.
The state doesn't go straight to the guns because, historically, that's a fast track to a revolution; but all those other things (letters, court, etc.) mean nothing without the threat of death to back them.
Ultimately, the punishment for absolute defiance of even the smallest of offenses is (and must be to cement the power of the state) death.
"It's not about liking it."
Not as long as you have no choice. Don't forget about that part ;)
"We could make this same argument for almost any legal issue."
And indeed I do. I stand opposed to all forms of government.
I was initially going to respond to you point by point, as I customarily do. But we really have to trudge through a general ignorance on your part on the issue of theft, and what makes a specific action theft. First and foremost, without its legal context, there is no such thing as theft. So the "semantics" that you seem to depreciate are in fact important. Semantics help us not confuse legal jargon, and misuse terms even for the sake of argument.
The act of theft is not predicated on the use of force. The term "theft" only describes the taking of someone's property without their consent. For example, if someone leaves their IPod on a restaurant chair to go to the bathroom, and someone else picks it up and keeps it, then that person has committed theft. If that person uses violence to attain that same IPod, then it's not longer "theft", it actually becomes "robbery". But either way, by giving consent, you have necessarily precluded any legitimate allegation of theft. And consent does not simply mean acquiescing to demands made of you.
There's also one more, and probably more important reason why taxes don't constitute theft. Taxation is a form of debt repayment. You owe the government money for your continued use of the public goods and services that the government provides, and you may not be able to benefit from individually - the very things that allow you to maximize your productive capacity.
"First and foremost, without its legal context, there is no such thing as theft."
Oh, so because YOU seem to be incapable define theft for yourself, that means everyone else should do the same and is wrong in how they use words unless the go about doing so in the same way you do? =/
It seems I'm only as "ignorant" as you are arrogant.
"First and foremost, without its legal context, there is no such thing as theft."
So, if the state collapsed tomorrow and I decided to just walk into your home and take everything I could carry it would NOT be stealing just because a bunch of guys in suits of whom proclaim themselves judges wouldn't be around to tell you it's theft?
Besides, have you not already stated that, "it's not the referring to its illegality, but the omission of consent that makes it theft and distinguishes theft from, for example, a loan or taxation." and now you are once again making the claim that theft is based on legality, hmm.
you're being inconsistent. Perhaps it would be more true to say that YOU are only as ignorant as you are arrogant.
"The act of theft is not predicated on the use of force."
1. This is only how YOU define it and means nothing outside of your own head unless whomever you're talking to (myself in this case) agrees to use the word in the same way. You have no monopoly on the use of words and I am equally free to define them as you are.
2. I say any act the uses force/ the threat of force in order to extract what another persons goods and/or money is theft.
"The term "theft" only describes the taking of someone's property without their consent."
Again, according to you. Not necessarily the way anyone else does or should define theft as.
"For example, if someone leaves their IPod on a restaurant chair to go to the bathroom, and someone else picks it up and keeps it, then that person has committed theft. If that person uses violence to attain that same IPod, then it's not longer "theft", it actually becomes "robbery". But either way, by giving consent, you have necessarily precluded any legitimate allegation of theft."
And if you're only consenting in the chance your life will be sparred, is it theft then?
"And consent does not simply mean acquiescing to demands made of you."
Only if you are so discriminant in YOUR personal definition of the word consent that it excludes acts of or the threat of violence and in this case even I cannot find a dictionary that backs you up on this.
That's fine, you are free to use words however against the grain you want, but understand that this is just YOUR definition and not a universal standard that anyone else needs to have.
"There's also one more, and probably more important reason why taxes don't constitute theft. Taxation is a form of debt repayment. You owe the government money for your continued use of the public goods and services that the government provides, and you may not be able to benefit from individually - the very things that allow you to maximize your productive capacity."
Bullshit. I don't "owe" the government for forcing a coercive monopoly on the services it has done so on. That's retarded and up until now I thought you were at least somewhat intelligent, but your as big of a fool as everyone else I've debated thus far.
Do you need a lesson on economics or are you going to admit to making a stupid mistake on this point? =/
Theft is a legal term. And I am using it consistent with jurisprudence. You can choose to define words however you see fit, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend to indulge your whimsical, persuasive definition for any reason. What you are calling theft is robbery (See: legal dictionaries for distinction between theft and robbery, I got my use from Amy Hackney Blackwell's "The Essential Law Dictionary"). Your allegation that this is my definition and not the common use is your departure from reality. It's as simple as that. And your accusation of taxation equalling theft, hinging your argument on emotional pleas, hyperbole and exaggerated allegations of force and potential death, is incorrect and an injustice to healthy debate.
You benefit from public goods that you otherwise wouldn't be able to afford (assuming you're not rich), just as the rest of society benefits from them. I highly doubt that you spend all day cursing roads for being "coercive monopolies" while you're driving on them, or shake your first at police officers or armed forces that enforce the law and protect us. These goods require maintenance for their perpetuation, and since you gain benefit from them at disproportionately subsidized rates, you pay back what you owe.
If you really have such a problem with being held accountable to the law and want to continue depreciating forms of governments, I can point you to countries or places on the planet where you don't have to worry about those things at all.
"Theft is a legal term. And I am using it consistent with jurisprudence. You can choose to define words however you see fit, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend to indulge your whimsical, persuasive definition for any reason."
Bullshit. If you really felt that way you wouldn't have commented to me in the first place. ;)
You clearly think I should use words (or, at least this word) the same way you do.
For someone refusing to indulge you sure have done quite a bit of indulging.
"What you are calling theft is robbery (See: legal dictionaries for distinction between theft and robbery, I got my use from Amy Hackney Blackwell's "The Essential Law Dictionary"). "
Oh jeez, so either I let them rob me or they'll steal it. Big freakin' difference.
"Your allegation that this is my definition"
It is.
"and not the common use"
Common use is arbitrary.
"is your departure from reality."
Only if you see it that way.
"And your accusation of taxation equaling theft,"
Does it comfort you more to call taxation robbery than theft?
"hinging your argument on emotional pleas,"
I'm a passionate person, but my arguments are far from rooted in emotions. I'm appealing you your preference to keep your belongings (through robbery or theft, using your definitions of each government still does both). If I seem emotional it's because you're seeing emotions in my arguments, not necessarily because they are there.
"hyperbole and exaggerated allegations of force and potential death, is incorrect and an injustice to healthy debate."
An injustice according to.. you. You feel as though I'm being unjust in saying that the government will kill you for not obeying their edicts?
All the letters and threats of a government mean nothing if they won't kill you in the end. Sure, maybe they'll manage to arrest you and throw you in solitary for 20-life, but is that better?
"You benefit from public goods that you otherwise wouldn't be able to afford (assuming you're not rich), just as the rest of society benefits from them."
For example?
"I highly doubt that you spend all day cursing roads for being "coercive monopolies" while you're driving on them, or shake your first at police officers or armed forces that enforce the law and protect us."
Neither of those things require a government to exist. Just the opposite, the very fact that the government has monopolized such markets shows that there was/is a very high demand for such services independent of the state.
So, even if there was no government there would still be roads/police because there is a strong enough demand for these services that someone would start a business to supply them.
"These goods require maintenance for their perpetuation, and since you gain benefit from them at disproportionately subsidized rates, you pay back what you owe."
Oh how lucky I am to live in a world where only one organization free of competition exists to build roads and supply protection at the bare minimum required to stop people from marching angrily in the streets in protest and violently stomps out any possible competition.
Surely, I owe a great debt to these men and women who give so much by assigning mandatory payments from us to them. =/
"If you really have such a problem with being held accountable to the law and want to continue depreciating forms of governments, I can point you to countries or places on the planet where you don't have to worry about those things at all."
You assume that you need a government to have order. Even contries that didn't have a government (for example, the 1000 YEARS ireland held together free of government) had "law".
We need to pay taxes to support infrastructure. I don't think this debate merits any more effort than I've already put into this argument, so I'll leave it at that unless you can come up with a viable alternative to pay for infrastructure.
Your post is irrelevant. The question of this debate is not about the costs of the infrastructure or the liability of those costs.
But according to your post, you don’t have a problem with theft as long as it benefits you and others. I also suppose your argument would be vastly different if the Christian populace used your taxable wages to pay for infrastructure which benefits them and others.
Duh! Its not theft if its helping everyone. Everyone contributes something so that everyone can have something. Do you like being able to drive on roads? Or having a police force to protect you? Not even just you, but your family and friends as well. So, according to you, because its helping everybody, its theft. Is that because you're not okay with helping anybody but yourself?
it is not because i am selfish and if you honestly believe that you are misunderstanding the debate.
if mother Tressa or Ghondi started to use threats and punishments against people if they did not give money to help them, would we look at them the same? no
unjust means do not justify noble ends. what we hate is that we are forced to give these services against our own free will.
if a doctor came in your house and put you at gun point saying you have to buy health insurance or you would get hurt. does the fact that he wanted you to have health insurance justify the gun at your head to do it?
lol i like the sarcasm, sadly this is what people (mainly liberals believe). thats why they support Islamic terrorism, because even though a few hundred civilians have to die, their goal to bring happiness to Allah is just such a fuzzy feeling inside and honorable, that its almost impossible to not feel compassion for them.
amazing how you like the rest miss point. regardless of the benefits that may come i am still forced to give up my property or face consequences. the taking of some ones property against their will is theft, period.
My question was neither hypothetical nor irrelevant. Theft is not a payment, taxes are a payment. If someone breaks into your home and takes your money they are not going to then mow your lawn and take out your garbage afterward. The reason you don't have a choice to pay taxes is because as long as you live in this country you are benefiting from the services provided by the government.
My question was neither hypothetical nor irrelevant.
Then strike the term “if” from your assertion/question. Until you do, it is hypothetical.
Furthermore, strike the terms “then is it”. Until then, it is also a rhetorical question.
Lastly, it is irrelevant because it is does not the answer the question of this debate. Why? We are not debating the purpose of taxation. We are debating whether or not the attribute “legalized theft” is predicable of taxation in truth.
Theft is not a payment, taxes are a payment. If someone breaks into your home and takes your money they are not going to then mow your lawn and take out your garbage afterward. The reason you don't have a choice to pay taxes is because as long as you live in this country you are benefiting from the services provided by the government.
Again, we are not debating the purpose/s of taxation. What do you not understand about debating a proposition?
The reason you don't have a choice to pay taxes is because as long as you live in this country you are benefiting from the services provided by the government.
Perfect, you are now on record of admitting that taxation is theft, by inference. Clearly, you are aware of the fact that taxation is theft. Consequently all you are doing is obfuscating ‘theft’ by renaming it ‘taxation’. How is this so?
Simple, “you don't have a choice to pay taxes”!
Forego your inclination to again argue the purpose of taxation in order to negate ‘theft’ as an attribute of taxation.
Taxation is not theft genius you are paying for a service or services provided by the government. So I assume that means you believe that if I sell my car and you give me money for it that's theft right? Or if I say I will mow your lawn but I want monetary compensation obviously it's theft. Are you stupid or just an anarchist. My guess is you want everything privatized like the military and the fire department and the police force. Am I right?
the government takes your money with out your consent and if you choose not to pay you receive consequences like imprisonment and financial assets forcefully taken.
the government is not like buying a bike, i am forced to buy the bike or i receive punishment.
so next time before you march in like a retard. look at the other post and you will see i and others have disproved your basic point you have provided.
and for the end. yes you are right, privatized services would end theft from government which they have masterfully masqueraded as "taxation"
what is this mentality going around that we need government for every thing? if the government stops paying for police, wouldn't, we the people instead form to gather and pay for a privatized police force? thats what the west did for years during westwards manifestation. the city elected a sheriff who in return for money, protected the people.
if government stooped taking your garbage, wouldn't you, pay a private services company to take your garbage.
i think the problem here is that you people think that when i say no taxation, i mean no public services, when really on the contrary, all i want to happen is for government services to be privatized, so people have the ability to pay for it or not.
No, there wouldnt be people forming together to help others, because thats the mentality of the human race. Im not saying its right, but if you needed help and the only person that was able to help you also needed help, he would sure forget about you. Our country has been set up as every man for himself, and until everybody can be trusted to do the right thing, this system would not work. Youre placing too much faith in humanity.
Okay so you would rather our country be run by a giant conglomerate and the rich few rather than us the people. You would rather it be the ones with the money running things rather than us. I do agree with you on the idea of the government can be wrong and that is why we need to keep it in check because if we privatize we lose control. I will say this, socialism can be the best if done right just look at Sweden they did it amazingly.
infrastructure. as in the formation and management of society? sorry be more specific for me.
and if so again i say privatized services. we don't need a collective mass of people to form society, this is called organicism and Hegel is who founded it. he believed we need government giving us social propose, would complete a man, not true. while society is good, a society that is biased and based off a set of beliefs that are inforced will only cause conflict and problems, as have been.
Infrastructure can of course mean many things. Let's take something basic, like roads and bridges. Even over a hundred years ago, the Brooklyn bridge cost more than 15 million dollars to build. Without taxation, where is this money going to come from? That's just the bridge itself, where is the money going to come from to build roads, put in a sewer system, traffic lights, fire hydrants, street lights...the list could go on almost forever.
again the people. people will realize that they need their sewage gone, a bridge over a river for transportation, and schools for education. once realized, people will work together to create these things.
why is it so hard for you people to see this. i know that these ideas seems like a dream society, but with education, enlightenment, and so forth, people can create this dream, it has already been proven (read my other post to see them) and we can once again, bring it back. this is what the philosophers have been talking about for ages, form Plato to Marx, but finally we have reached a ideology that does not need government.
"the people. people will realize that they need their sewage gone, a bridge over a river for transportation, and schools for education. once realized, people will work together to create these things."
Let me start off by saying, you should try to spell and type more grammatically correct, it adds a level of intelligence to your written argument that can't be gotten any other way.
As to the topic of the argument, what your talking about ends in government! You say people will realize the need for certain things, and knowing that no single person can fund it, and that everyone will use it, they should pool their own money in order to get it done. Someone or some group would be in charge of collecting the money correct? Of course they would not have their labor and time go for free right? So you would pay them a small fee for collecting the money and spending it on what the town agreed upon right? it would be a majority rules situation, and if you didn't agree you wouldn't have to pay for it right? Now what the keep you from not paying and still utilizing the benefits of others spending? Absolutely nothing right? So the people would want it to be mandatory that you pay, but it wouldn't be a set amount it would just be a percentage based on how much you made right? That's called government and the democratic system... I'm not sure if you understand that the government was purposed for doing just what you are talking about! If these clusters of people created and ran their own government, who would pay for national security? Satellites, interstates, because no one town would foot the bill it would be a collective effort, and you would want some group to manage that, correct?
The fact is I don't think you thought this out well enough, go do some more research.
wow amazing how people turn non government arguments into government ones. your just one of the other clueless people i debate about government, and your whole u need research attack at the end has be used. ill start off plainly, you like the rest, are wrong.
if people wanted a company to pay for services they would. the people not paying would not receive the services. simple enough?
and no we would not want it to be mandatory, that is forced payment for services called taxation which i am fighting against. if a person did not pay for something, he simple does not enjoy the fruitation it brings. so after responding to your first part of the argument proving you wrong and me again, for the hundredth time restating my view on the matter. i see no need to continue refuting the rest of your argument because again, it has to do with people being forced to pay for services, which again i will say once more. libertarians and me disagree with.
so please. try not to confuse my argument with yours. it makes you look retarded and you add words to my mouth i did not say that i have to waste time fixing so other sheeple don't get confused when they read these arguments.
and no the government was not purposed for what i am talking about. the government is ruled by a few thousand for the millions (causing unfair representation) taxation (legalized theft) and a all or nothing set up when it comes to voting on anything (a very elementary tactic used so that the sheeple of America don't have to hurt their heads about politics so the big cats can run things they way they want with out interference) no, this government was not set up at all for my beliefs, which is why, i am a libertarian.
"wow amazing how people turn non government arguments into government ones. your just one of the other clueless people i debate about government, and your whole u need research attack at the end has be used. ill start off plainly, you like the rest, are wrong."
It's amazing how people turn a conversation debating the legality of taxation into a non government one... Also government and non government go hand in hand.
"if people wanted a company to pay for services they would. the people not paying would not receive the services. simple enough? and no we would not want it to be mandatory, that is forced payment for services called taxation which i am fighting against. if a person did not pay for something, he simple does not enjoy the fruitation it brings."
How is it possible not the recieve the service of a road build outside of your house? Or the protection from an army stationed on your coast? How would you stop companies from burning chemicals into the air? These are the question you need to answer, as well as the ones you choose not to in my last post.
"so after responding to your first part of the argument proving you wrong and me again, for the hundredth time restating my view on the matter."
So you admit you are stating your own view, and this view does not reflect the opinion of the average man. Maybe you should stop restating it and start listening to everyone elses.
i see no need to continue refuting the rest of your argument because again, it has to do with people being forced to pay for services, which again i will say once more. libertarians and me disagree with.
The simplist solution to go somewhere with no government, because the majority rules here, we are organized and happy with it, because it is the best way to advance and achieve prosperity.
But who has that much free time to plan that stuff out. We pay taxes so they can take care of it for us. If we didn't pay taxes, then who would pay for the road being built. Either way, we would have to pay in some form, whether it be walking door-to-door or paying taxes.
yes it is a debate. and just because i destroyed your earlier argument does not mean you have a right to post some retarded rebuttal. and as for a platform of rating, who put the pointless statement and received a point for it? you, so you need to get a blog. and next time, put purpose into it, so we have a debate.
Everything you're saying has at one time been attempted and every time it has been tried it has failed. There is a reason why essential services are run by the government, so that everybody has access to the essentials regardless of ability to pay.
In regards to mob justice, well.....mob justice is an oxymoron. Many innocent people are killed by mobs, because there is no due process of law with mob justice. Say goodbye to "innocent until proven guilty" that won't exist either. There is such a thing as privatized police chief, he's called a warlord.
again read my other argument about taxation being theft.
as for essential services. if they are so essential don't you think if there was not a unjust over lord government to carry them out wouldn't people find other ways of fulling them, thats what people did till government was created.
as for the whole warlord remark. thats like me saying there is such a thing as government its called totalitarianism.
there are multiple ways of getting a service. a warlord is a negative way of getting one and a warlord imposes government, something libertarians would not support or allow. so there for something people who are against government would not let happen.
1. People who can't afford essential services, won't have them.
2. Your argument, assumes that corporations have our best interests at heart.
The only way we can trust corporations is because the government regulates them, and the only way we can trust the government is because we can vote out whoever we don't like. Private businessmen WILL take advantage of you if they can.
i will answer the bottom paragraph first. private business. just because there is no government does not mean there is no law. libertarians believe in one crime only. stopping some one from utilizing their freedoms.
that means slavery, assault, theft. and stuff like that is illegal. that a side we can dig deeper into the subject.
the majority of industry live off government at this time, why? because the government is there to bail them out or take over when the going gets tough. most commonly the banking system. but if commerce stopped answering to government and had to answer to the people, industry would not get away with crimes and things of that such.
if a factory charges out raucous prices for a good, then in response the workers will stop working or a other business, such as a farmer will not sell food to the factory owner. hence we have a battle of the resources. aka capitalism. over time the factory owner will give up his plan to suck the people dry when he runs dry off his one necessities.
libertarianism is not going to be a world time thing, to many people will try to abuse the system of free marketing anarchy, while there are many things to hinder most people from crime, there will be that one person to try and ruin it all. the response to such a thing would of course be banishment or some sort of punishment such as working for the ones he hurt till their debt is paid off. because as i said earlier. libertarians still have a law that would be in forced by a privatized police force. meaning the people pay for the police directly and not indirectly to government who over charges them and partakes in robbery.
as for the top part where you say people will not be able to afford essential services. you are right. but just because taxation is gone does not mean people will not help the needy. Africa is mainly supported by charities, which are private owned pubic services paid by people who care. the poor for a time if lucky will have to live off these services till they get better.
the best way to help a poor man is to not make being poor easy (wellfare and etc) but to help them get out of poverty easier. once the poor realize they don't have a free ride they will find jobs and such. the less fortunate will have to migrate to other places and find other out lets.
because, why should a person be forced to pay for a poor man when he became rich him self by working his ass off to get there to just be told. now that your middle class or higher. you gotta help the poor and if you don't, you'll be facing imprisonment or worse. i mean if a charity walked into your room and told you that if you don't pay you'll go to jail, we would consider it robbery.
and again, why do we need a government to do this? don't you think, if we needed a road we would contact a city builder to construct it for us? think people. its not that hard
Who is we? You and who else? Who has organized the collection of money (we're talking billions of dollars)? Who authorized the person who organized the collection of money to do so? What will happen when almost no one agrees to pay? The problems with your position are endless.
us the people would pay him a fair share of money to make the road, was that difficult?
why do you believe you need some hired registered man who sits on his ass and paid to organize things(usually done poorly) to get any progress completed?
do we not wear shoes because its not government owned? no we put our own shoes on and use them.
the transition to privatizing things like police is not hard or scary, Switzerland's police are privatized and their crime rates are low. and they are paid handsomely.
us the people would pay him a fair share of money to make the road, was that difficult?
I know we're not supposed to attack each other, and I'm trying not to attack you, but it's quite apparent you haven't thought this through.
Since when do people do anything collectively without organization? They simply do not and cannot. Have you ever been employed? Have you ever employed others? If either is true, you must be aware of the fact that leadership is required.
You cannot be naive enough to think that it's possible for billions of dollars to be collected and transferred without a governing body.
You failed to answer a simple question as well. If it's not mandatory, what realistic expectation could you possibly have that anyone would be willing to pay for anything? It's lunacy. In your libertarian world, I simply wouldn't pay for anything. Why should I without a government in place to force compliance?
It probably wouldn't take a 5th grade study group more than a few minutes to realize how hopelessly flawed your logic is.
what you fail to realize is that people formed collectively for years with out forced compliance.
in the 15 and 1600s colonist lived in a libertarian state and got things done fine. they built roads. made army's. and farmed to grow their town.
people who don't pay like you, would simply not receive any of the benefits if you did. for instance. if you don't pay for some one to pick up ur garbage it piles up and u have to do it ur self. if u don't pay for police, they wont guard ur property.
so yes there will be people who don't want to pay. but they would end up hurting them self's since they will not get any of the benefits of society has to offer.
also. humans are not inherently evil. it is said government, which encourages aggression against things. like drugs and other countries causes our intolerance and evilness.
when left alone a person has the ability to form his own opinions and not be controlled by government.
and just because we believe in absence of government does not mean we don't have laws. people who abuse others and defeat their ability to make free choices are punished by law.
Even the best economic situations still have unemployment. Trash piling up for these poor would cause health problems, which would ripple out and cause more problems etc.
Many municipal police departments are private, but the crime rates are still high. How do you explain that?
Comparing Switzerland to the U.S is almost impossible. The have less than 8 million people in the entire country, that's less than the city of New York.
where is ur proof that crime rates are higher with privatized police forces?
and population has nothing to do with privatized police force. does the Sacramento police force also fight crime in Chicago?
no its regional and local. and your statement just supported mine. we have to big of a population for privatized police force. when on the contrary this is the best time for a privatized police force.
why? because instead of us paying taxes to government, who in time of crises. will use that money for other things (such as war, raw resources, etc) and therefore means the government will then take money away form what they have reserved for the police. and in times of debt, they take money away form the police force. in Sonoma county (where i live) we are laying off 200 officers, why? out county is in debt, but yet we have high rollers in limousines still walking in down town. this is because while the gov may be in debt, the citizens can sure not be.
since gov is cutting funding to police, this is where we say "woah, we like our security, lets privatize it in areas where people can afford it so we can maintain our police force". this is the libertarian stance, when government ( a single formed unit) hit lows, were all affected. but the people( a diverse unity) have a far less chance of having all at once lows. and when there is no government needing money when it hits recession, the people will benefit, because we wont need to pull the weight of a hit boat sinking.
we have high rollers in limousines still walking in down town. this is because while the gov may be in debt, the citizens can sure not be. since gov is cutting funding to police, this is where we say "woah, we like our security, lets privatize it in areas where people can afford it so we can maintain our police force".
What about the communities that can't afford a police force by themselves? Your examples has millionaires in it. Not every county in the world is full of wealthy people that can pay for protection in that sense.
that is why i said areas that can afford privatized police forces. next time read the statement. I'm not talking instant change or something. it will come slow.
and the poor already pay taxes for crappier police. if they could choose to higher their own townspeople for protection, it would be mor effective then our current set up
why?
in Chicago and other crime ridden areas. the police instead of patrolling the area every day like they should. they go on raids once a week attacking high gang drug areas. then leave and do it again next week.
this needs to end. we need round the clock services for services we are being forced to pay.
and community people offering to protect their neighborhood is effective.
in one Latin America country (i want to say Uruguay) a dictator owned the country. and the police only guarded the rich and political. the poor and unconcerned decided they needed the crime in their cities to end too. so they would have two men per block with flash lights and some weapon patrol the area and keep crime off their block. this instance of a community working together when they had no money to pay for it is an example that other methods of public services being reached with out money and such.
and the poor already pay taxes for crappier police.
Your side of the debate is saying that taxation is legalized theft. It's either everyone pays taxes, or no one pays taxes. You can't single out a few people and tell them that they don't have to pay taxes because they can supply their own protection and services. You make it a double standard. For you, if you're wealthy, taxes are so horrible, but if you're poor, then taxes are a lifesaver.
That entire example that you gave could only work if someone is so gracious enough to provide protection without pay, which many people won't. I don't know if you have to pay a mortgage, or rent, or any other bills, but they don't get paid if you're making no money.
lol i kind of made my self look hypocritical. but i was trying to say is that as we make progress towards no taxes, the people who could afford to have private services will and then they would have lower taxes and then those taxes they still have will go to helping poor cities to maintain public services till they can find ways to do it their selves.
If private citizens did all the infrastructure themselves they would make it so that only they (the rich) people could use these facilities. They'd make it so that only they would have access things like medicare, roads, bridges etc. it would simply lead to those very small amounts of peoples getting things and very large amounts of peoples not having access to it.
In the end it would lead to totalitarianism and authoritarianism by the private citizens.
Trust me, unless you're millionaires, that means you wouldn't be allowed to walk on a well maintained road. Yes, that means YOU (libertarian foolish cunts)
it is amazing how retarded you are. the whole point of privatized facilities is that the people chose to pay for them to work. every instance of your argument goes back to saying that government would take over.
In the end it would lead to totalitarianism and authoritarianism by the private citizens.
um no. libertarians don't believe in government interaction period. so if a man started to impose regulations infringing on people's rights or property, he would be punished in a libertarian style. most likly banned form the area due to him trying to bring government to a non government society.
. so then if some one decided to say, hey, i own the roads and choose to put high taxes on them, then the people would build their own road or trade with an other town with out ridiculous demands. which would then, hurt the man who sent a high price on it in the first place. becouse then he would have no money to repair the road or he would be effected from no commerce.
if a soda company is charging 10 dollars for a soda, do u go. well i have to buy it. or do you look for a cheaper soda or don't drink soda at all and find a other way to quench ur thirst. its like that in a libertarian society. you have a freedom to choose ur options or to make ur own, as long as they don't intrude on other peoples ability to do the same.
Trust me, unless you're millionaires, that means you wouldn't be allowed to walk on a well maintained road. Yes, that means YOU (libertarian foolish cunts)
um no agian. the millionar would loose money and workers for his ridculous demands causing him to loose his finacial status and destoying his bussniess. if a man charges stupid prices for a service, you find some one else or find ways to have the person lower the pice for his service. in a libertarian scoiciety, its not a all or nothing set up. you have other options.
Libertarians don't believe in the redistribution of wealth. If you build a house, you don't want to share it with anybody but family or w/e. If you build a road, you don't want to share it with anybody either. However it won't be just one person building all the roads up and down the country (lol). The richest people will pool their money together and build roads made of gold for themselves. They won't allow poor people access to these roads because they didn't pay for it.
A multibillion dollar company would have it so their workers lived in slum-like conditions (or enough to keep them from rioting) enough to let keep them alive so they can continue to slave away. People would throw away these 'freedoms' and 'rights' for financial stability.
Hopefully democracy intervenes and the people riot.
yes we don't believe in redistribution of wealth. why should a guy get to be lazy and live off well fare while a middle class family struggles to maintain their financial status and then have to pay leeches sucking off their tax's to government.
if a group of rich people monopolized services like the government, and then if people chose to not pay for them or support their services. they would suffer. if a billionaire owned a factory and paid shit prices to his workers, then the people could riot or not make his products. then the factory owner would suffer from no business and then would be more reasonable to demands.
you keep referring libertarianism to aristocracy. libertarianism is not a government type. it is no government.
How much does somebody in mcdonalds get paid to do their job? How much less do you think they'd get paid if it wasn't for the government? Billionaires own factories and pay shit prices to their workers.
In a society with no government the middle class would die out and there would only be extremely wealthy and extremely poor. The wealthy exploiting the poor and the poor putting up with it for financial security.
What you don't understand is that it wouldn't happen straight away. It will slowly lead to this. There wouldn't just be one day where everybody rich would live on paradise island and everybody poor will live in slums. Over time if the rich get to play their hand (as you advocate) they will surpress the poor until they are nothing more than slaves. They won't care Freedom of Speech, the Bill of Rights etc. - they'll care about how many tons their purses weigh.
again i tell you. there are limits on the rich. no government does not mean no law.
the rich will not be able to take over to the point of infringing on people's rights. and again i tell you, you continue to confuse libertarianism with aristocracy. your fears of the rich taking over are justified to an extent, but its no different form my fears of a dictator taking over our democracy and ruthlessly leading us. the rich in a government that own business are usually intertwined with government causing unfairness and inequality.
but if big business did not have government behind them bailing them out in a crises, they would rely on their workers for their income meaning that impoverishing the workers would be disadvantageous for them. look at Russia, as government failed during ww2 the workers overthrew their factories being angry with them and since the factories had no government to protect them they were defenseless. I'm no Marxist and i strongly disagree with the formation of communism there but it was my example of workers in a non government time period making a change.
If a company(s) can just buy out and manipulate government as it has done in the past, why make it easier and allow them to pay mercenaries well we dissolve our defenses for privatized ones who only care about money, instead of about being in office next year when elections roll around or some such thing.
Capitalism results and exists because of an imbalance of power relations, unless those power relations are eliminated anarchy is impossible. Regulated capitalism is currently creating the means to eliminate those, getting rid of that regulation will result in things like early Chicago's back of the yards/cannary vile:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_City,_Chicago upton's sinclar's setting for his famous book "the jungle." admittedly his book is a little extreme but based on actuality. Capitalism needs to be regulated, or else the free market disappears and whatever is profitable weather it be poor working conditions, lead in our toys, coke(the drug) in our cola etc happens.
I don't really know what you're getting at here... I don't even know what your point is tbh...
Libertarian isn't aritocracy - that's why they're 2 different things (lol). But it will lead to that. It's just one of the many bad outcomes of libertarian ideals. Libertarians are one of the stupidest groups of people I've ever met. They have no idea of how the world really works. They miss half of the picture and what they do see, they only see in the short run. The only reason I bother arguing is because I know they'll run out of shit to say. Just as you have.
again you are wrong, and i will never run out of shit to say, why in fact, you repeat your self every time you post a statement. making it look like you have been out of stuff to say for a while and instead have resorted to repetition.
libertarians have laws to stop the things you are talking about from happening.
our law is this. it is illegal to interfere and stop other people's freedom.
that means slavery(which you said would result to my society), assault, rape, theft, and etc are illegal.
as for me not seeing the whole picture of the world. i big to differ. i used to strongly support government going out of my way to bash liberals and anarchist right and left telling them their retarded like you are now.
but then i had a revelation to say. i saw government for what it is. that government is what causes war, intolerance, inequality, and causes man to become evil. while you can have better governments (such as democracy) they are only a lesser evil then others. i feel. that after people or educated to not think government wise. that we can live in a society with out needing a large central power telling us what to do.
again you are wrong, and i will never run out of shit to say, why in fact, you repeat your self every time you post a statement. making it look like you have been out of stuff to say for a while and instead have resorted to repetition.
libertarians have laws to stop the things you are talking about from happening.
our law is this. it is illegal to interfere and stop other people's freedom.
that means slavery(which you said would result to my society), assault, rape, theft, and etc are illegal.
as for me not seeing the whole picture of the world. i big to differ. i used to strongly support government going out of my way to bash liberals and anarchist right and left telling them their retarded like you are now.
but then i had a revelation to say. i saw government for what it is. that government is what causes war, intolerance, inequality, and causes man to become evil. while you can have better governments (such as democracy) they are only a lesser evil then others. i feel. that after people or educated to not think government wise. that we can live in a society with out needing a large central power telling us what to do.
Every argument, in this debate, that I have read, which denies that taxation is legalized theft, is a red-herring argument. Not a one of those arguments has argued ‘taxation is not legalized theft’. All of them justify theft by asserting taxation is legal and therefore there is no theft.
Would you care to debate the proposition of this debate?
lol, so your saying that the only response to my arguments is that they say its legal (because government said so) making it not theft? if so, i agree, they have not come up with any good reasons for taxation not being theft besides things that i have shown can be done with out government help.
But the amount of work, coordination, and outside costs it would take to make everything private would probably end up costing you more in the long run than the taxes you pay.
Most of the participants would change their tune very abruptly if the question is: Capital punishment is legalized killing. Albeit, principally, there is no difference betwixt that proposition and the question of this debate.
Yeah I guess your right. For me its more about the retarded libertarian ideals rather than the debate itself.
So my stance is - taxation is NOT legalized theft.
I've got 2 arguments to this - so here's my first (not so strong)
Taxation isn't theft as the government is taking money that is being put back into society which benefits those who have paid the taxes - something theft does not entail.
Here is the initial phase of an argument affirming that Taxation is legalized theft.
Let’s digress for a moment. Capital punishment is legalized killing.
Let’s now consider both propositions.
1) Both taxation and capital punishment are legal. This is axiomatic.
2) Capital punishment is killing. This is axiomatic.
3) Taxation is theft. This is also axiomatic.
How? Simple, the government of the United States enforces both taxation and Capital punishment by obvious, open coercion-- which is legal. I’ll now focus upon the principles of taxation as they relate to men taxing other men. (Only men collect taxes from men. Let’s forget the notion that a government exists apart from men.)
Men bind themselves to one another through contracts. All parties who are signatories of a contract are consenting to the terms of that contract. If a person does not sign a contract, the same has then not bound itself thereby, to other men, according to its terms. Either way, no person can be (justly) punished for refusing to contract with other men.
Notwithstanding, no man can justly assume the consent of another man. Two men can’t assume the consent of a third person. Two-hundred men can’t assume the consent of another person. Five-hundred politicians, calling themselves the ‘government’, can’t assume the consent of another person. Yet, if a people decide that they can assume the consent of another person, the same are enemies, criminals and tyrants to the person who no longer has a choice to determine with whom it shall not covenant.
Are we in agreement thus far before I continue this argument?
Legally living in a country means willingness (or atleast pretence) to abide by the rules, and so by owning property within a nations border you have given consent to the laws set by the nation. By living (legally) in a country I have consented to paying tax.
A man does not have money taken off him by a government and call it taxation. A man PAYS his taxes. It is not theft. It is investment. A man injecting money into the national treasury does so for a return - better hospitals, better emergency services, better schools etc which in the long run would benefit him.
In the scenario of the underworld. A man pays taxes to the strongest gang to do his trade. If he doesn't he'll face the reprecussions. However - this man has to pay these taxes regardless of his choice - he has no say in the matter. In a democracy you have a say in who you pay your money to whether you win or you loose. You pay the government for its services and the government provides for you in return for your money.
If you disagree with paying taxes yet benefit from the government who has an services against foreign and domestic threats, services for your health, services for your basic needs/requirements, services for your income, services for your welfare then you are the thief. If you truly disagree with benefits you would be living outside of any government influence/services.
I hope that gives my argument and counters yours. (You have a way with words which may have left a guy as blunt as myself confused)
Legally living in a country means willingness (or atleast pretence) to abide by the rules, and so by owning property within a nations border you have given consent to the laws set by the nation. By living (legally) in a country I have consented to paying tax.
Bullshit! And you know it! (I am being friendly and not antagonistic. Just ask my friends and family.)
Sorry, there is no argument which will persuade me that my dissent is illegal. Especially when I am told that my consent is legally assumed by other persons. However, the fact remains that I have not formally consented to anything. There is no contract in existence which allows another man to evidence I have formally consented, by writing, to be taxed without my consent. (Prove to me that paying taxes universally negates coercion. After all, I would rather consent to the demands of a thief/thieves than suffer both the loss of my property and imprisonment.)
And until some man or group of men can produce a document in which I have voluntarily, and contractually, bound myself to taxation, all efforts to extort my wages are criminal.
Ultimately, your rebuttal, as well as nearly all others of the same position, is criminalizing dissent.
(I would have thought that most people understand that one man’s liberty is not legally negated by other men’s tyranny.)
Let me now focus my argument toward you and those of your view.
Currently, your camp believes it derives a greater benefit from taxation than the benefit of self-reliance. Your camp, which I will now refer to as the “Cabal”, thusly relies upon the labors of others in order to support its standard of existence.
(I’ll stop for moment for the sake of avoiding my re-visitation of the degenerate intellect of serfs and proletariats. And no, I am not intending to insult you. But you may very well be my punching bag, temporarily. Sorry! )
I can't find a true argument to say that taxation is not legalised theft. Instead my stance is that tax is (or should be) for the common good so by default is not theft which isn't good.
Currently, your camp believes it derives a greater benefit from taxation than the benefit of self-reliance. Your camp, which I will now refer to as the “Cabal”, thusly relies upon the labors of others in order to support its standard of existence.
Ultimately - yes. I don't know how to fix pot-holes in roads. I don't have time to look through the evidence to decide whether or not an individual is guilty. I don't have the time to check whether or not somebody is carrying drugs on the plane.
I have the ability to produce more than I can use. The surplus can either be used to pay private companies to help themselves and me... or the government to help everybody. That's tax in this day and age (to me anyway) hiring a public (not a private) company.
I have the ability to produce more than I can use. The surplus can either be used to pay private companies to help themselves and me... or the government to help everybody. That's tax in this day and age (to me anyway) hiring a public (not a private) company.
Do you disagree?
Interesting perspective you have there.
And yes, categorically, I disagree.
Let’s consider exhibit 99: Food stamps
In the U.S., a portion of the taxes collected from private citizens are allocated for food benefits. The recipients of these benefits can then buy food from their local China-mart or Mexi-mart. The businesses which accept these benefits as payment for food are monetarily reimbursed by Morgan Stanley, which handles the clearing house for these transactions; well, 80% of them anyway. Shall I also add that Morgan Stanley generates a profit thereby? What about the farms that receive monetary payment from China-Mart or Mexi-Mart in exchange for their food.
See, in the example of the food stamps, the government is transferring your surplus wealth from your hands to the hands of other private entities, through the hands of the impoverished citizens of your society.
Therefore, in the example of food stamps, you are benefitting private corporations despite your effort to benefit a public company by paying taxes.
(For the record though, I do believe, and I mean “believe”, all human beings have a responsibility to not over-look the needs of the poor. Why? In one simple term: reasonable and unadulterated COMPASSION!) But, I will add the qualification: each according to his ability and abundance in accord with his choice. After all, no man will rationally choose to give one cent each to 1000 paupers when ten bucks given to one pauper will..., and the right to choose which pauper shall be...)
But let’s assume that no man dissents to taxation for the sake of paupers, despite the lucrative profits such taxation provides for private corporations, and consider another subject: a standing army.
Would you care to argue this one for me, or shall I? (I chose that subject as one which seemingly lends itself to a justification for taxation regardless of dissent.)
Firstly isn't your argument the improper use of taxes rather than tax itself? I'm guessing you're not against welfare or helping the poor pay for their meals - but would prefer it if the money didn't go into the hands of private companies?
In UK we don't have food stamps so I don't really know much about how it works - so there are other ways of applying tax without letting the money go to private companies.
Would you care to argue this one for me, or shall I? (I chose that subject as one which seemingly lends itself to a justification for taxation regardless of dissent.)
Having an army in private hands? Would only lead to dictatorship. Having several armies with several 'companies' would only lead to cold wars between them. An true army's intention would be for the public's intention, working for a private company only makes them mercenaries. An army (by my definition) are people who offer their lives to protect or expand their nation - not for their bank statements or their leader's ill intentions.
I think it'd be better if you argued this one though because I don't really know how to poke at this subject.
Firstly isn't your argument the improper use of taxes rather than tax itself?
I was following along with your post. Consider it an application of how tax revenues can and do benefit both the poor and wealthy. But, truthfully, I am not intending to dispute proper or improper allocation of tax revenue.
I'm guessing you're not against welfare or helping the poor pay for their meals - but would prefer it if the money didn't go into the hands of private companies?
If I consent to be taxed for that purpose, then the answer is no. And consequently I must disregard who is the final beneficiary.
Would you care to argue this one for me, or shall I? (I chose that subject as one which seemingly lends itself to a justification for taxation regardless of dissent.)
I think it'd be better if you argued this one though because I don't really know how to poke at this subject.
I was not thinking ‘private’ standing Armies, rather public.
Would you like to have the first stab at this one? Originally, I did not clarify either a public or private Army.
So the general question is should we tax and use taxes to maintain a standing army?
Armies are needed. At all times. Regardless of whether or not we THINK we need them as they hold purpose for the future too.
Knowing that we need armies - armies that serve the public, with people putting their lives up so others can live by their ideals - we should fund them so they can be maintained.
An army is a necessity to a nation. Without an army you cannot really be defined as an independant nation.
Did you know that the same army, which is paid in part from your wages, could in fact be given orders to imprison you as an enemy of the state because of your ideology?
Would you therefore consent to taxation for the purpose of depriving you of your ideal? I do not think so! Unless of course you desire to pay the cost for unjustly imprisoning you.
My taxes go to the army for them to follow the orders. If they lock me up - I have consented to their actions. What I have not agreed to is the government's decision to lock me up. It's the government who I have the problem with not the army.
If I'm not being hypocritical that is. Nobody would truly admit this though. ;)
My taxes go to the army for them to follow the orders. If they lock me up - I have consented to their actions.
That is not consent. It is surrender. One cannot consent to an ultimatum. Shall I explain this in detail?
What I have not agreed to is the government's decision to lock me up. It's the government who I have the problem with not the army.
So, you have a problem with the decision to “lock you up” but you don’t have a problem with being locked up? This is not compatible. Either you have a problem with both the order and its affect, or you have a problem with neither; but you can’t, reasonably, separate cause and effect and then affirm you have a problem with the cause and no problem with its effect.
If I'm not being hypocritical that is. Nobody would truly admit this though. ;)
I hope you can agree with that.
Here is what I agree with:
As long as you pay taxes by consent, taxation is not theft. But, the moment you decide you no longer consent to it, taxation is legalized theft.
Remember, the legalization of an act is not the negation of a criminal act. Furthermore, justice is a natural, universal concept that is common to all men and not subject to a society of criminals who believe that the writ of man establishes justice. After all, this debate can be reduced to one, compound, propositional question:
Justice is not legal or illegal.
Evidence:
Not robbing your neighbor is not legal. There is no law that legalizes the negative action of not robbing your neighbor. This is an evidence of the existence of justice. But contrariwise, just because men can write and obey laws which are thusly legal, does not mean those actions are above and immune to natural justice. See, whether it is legal or illegal, justice is the judge of both.
Have you heard the expression: “Justice is blind.”?
Ok so as long as we pay tax with consent, you agree it's not theft.
For those that sit there saying they'd rather have a nation without tax will always (I can garauntee this) come to the conclusion that taxing is good/better. But should we sit there waiting for 100 years to go by for these people to learn their lessons?
Have you heard the expression: “Justice is blind.”?
Yes, I love the saying. But I will never witness it. Too many times justice is not served
good good, your argument has good points in it, and while at first (when i looked for the justification of forced taxation) i looked at the upsides of taxation, and i came up with the same outcomes as you.
but, for the sake of argument and also some of the flaws that still occur in forced taxation i must, like always, dispute you.
you say that you don't have the skill to do the things you mentioned. your right none of us have all the skills to everything. but you, when hurt, look for a doctor, or when you need new shoes, go to a shoe store.
the same would be done with the things government has monopolized. a builder would come to a city, some people may agree to pool some money for the builder to repair a road or such. the builder gets paid and the people who paid get a service done, all done with out the need of forced money taking.
but then you take the argument to a bigger scope. that is, crime and justice. this is where we would use privatized police forces. people or business, seeing crime rising realize that their workers do not like going to work because of the crime near the work place. or the bank sees that people will not invest in their bank if robbery is common. theses intuitions would hire guards to protect their property, the work place would become safe and the bank a secure place to store money.
this is capitalism in the raw. that is, all services and goods being put out on the market for people to ether invest in or not. the neighborhood would increase in safety and beauty as more people invested into the bank and the bank had more money for More police. this was a basic libertarian example of government services being privatized. do you see. that if some thing is good or beneficial for you, that you will pay? if so, then the government would not need to forcefully demand money, this must mean that government knows that the stuff it does is not beneficial to all and there fore must demand money forcefully. that is my opinion.
privatized police forces. people or business, seeing crime rising realize that their workers do not like going to work because of the crime near the work place. or the bank sees that people will not invest in their bank if robbery is common. theses intuitions would hire guards to protect their property, the work place would become safe and the bank a secure place to store money.
Do you know what'll happen with a private police force? Only those who can afford it will be able to use it.
Let me give Kenya as an example. The police there are extremely corrupt. The local businessmen who can afford it hire a very good private security service. But only they can use it. In America however things work completely differently. These private forces will not be cheap. If working on an equal scale to todays police force, it would be infinately more expensive. Do you think (being a private company) these services will extend to everybody? or only their customers i.e. the people who can afford it? Once it's an oligarch or monopoly the companies would become even more expensive - even middle class families would not be able to afford them. That's what the government does with taxes - extends services for all - for the common good of all.
If there was no government it would be the world a pictured. A person of your financial background would not exist. There wouldn't be a white boy dwelling in the basement of his parent's suburbian home. There would be the extremely rich and the extremely poor. 99% chance you're extremely poor.
again you have a valid point about mercenary armies taking over. but again i say, that a libertarian thinker would not use the army for selfish ends. we are against the idea of some one imposing unfair circumstances on others. libertarians in the raw would most likely live in a Amish type town minding them selves. we know that the whole world would not think un selfish and cruel and what we are entering into is like trying to teach elementary kids pre cal.
if and only if when people decide to stop using any means for their own benefits that result in the impediment of other people rights can we then have global libertarianism.
but i am aware this cant be done. but some more practical easier things can be done, that is limiting taxation as much as possible. allow privatized services as mucn as passable.
i am not talking over the night change. that would end in disaster. like a foreigner country learns to use democracy, so does a man learn to use knowledge and wisdom to live in tolerance and understanding of others with out forced, unfair ruleship aka government.
government is like a grownup. till people are ready to not need it and grow, we will have it. and its your choice if you choose to live in it or not. and if you choose yes, i am not going to condemn you about it. i am not a zealous radical, but some one trying to tell others that government can become obsolete and how.
a libertarian thinker would not use the army for selfish ends
Probably would....
government is like a grownup. till people are ready to not need it and grow, we will have it.
Exactly, this is right. America is becoming more and more childish and is becoming more and more reliant on the government. In the old days (and I mean the OLD ASS DAYS) people were much more self reliant, and had the ability to get by without the government. Today where everybody is relatively spoilt, they don't have the ability to take care of themselves. They're also a lot more corrupt and would be trying to take advantage of everything as soon as the government is gone. Until people are able to better themselves (which atm they're not) the government will be needed. Capitalism is not a system which helps people better themselves.
you obviously don't know libertarianism. we do not support communism or any way of forced sharing of resources. so your first statement is wrong. i simply used the fact that the Amish live in small groups and that libertarianism would probably not expand greater then that.
as for for you saying that a libertarian would use the army for selfish ends. you are wrong.
why?
because as i stated. a libertarian is against impending on other peoples rights and freedom. meaning that we would actually stop people from using the army for selfish needs
as for the last statement. i agree up to capitalism. it is a way to help us. what America is experiencing to day is not true capitalism. but capitalism infested with socialism.
In it's core it's a group of people working together in a community.
Amish towns (if I'm right about the concept) is small communities where people work together and for each other for the betterment of their community. Much more communistic than capitalistic.
but capitalism infested with socialism.
Look at everything great that's happened in America's economy and you'll see it's always 'socialism' that's helped it. Government intervention not the lack of it is what's made America's economy great. Why do you think the Global meltdown happened? Because of government intervention or the lack of it? People like you who follow Bush's every word have no idea what's actually going on in the world.
first of all you are ignorant. communism employed by Stalin and other leaders and also Marx the founder of it was a use to harshly suppress and maintain society and to organize resources in ways government sees fit. the whole point of socialism and communism is we give government complete control over are resources and industry and trust they will do the right thing.
the stimulus bill by obama was a socialist move, that is spending billions on the country.
also minimum wage and other things. in fact any government interaction into commerce and business is socialism.
look what happened to our country when the government bungles and screws things up. were 13 trillion dollars in debt.
the truth, which government does not want to tell you is, they cant handle micromanaging the economy and ruling a nation, its never been done successfully, and i doubt will.
employed by Stalin and other leaders and also Marx
Exactly. Employed by STALIN. That was THEIR approach to it. It's not THE approach to it.
It was the government that allowed American companies to build themselves up against stronger foreign competition by creating huge tariffs on imports. If it wasn't for the government America wouldn't have ANY industry - because foriegn things are better.
Read it and weep - everything good = Government. Everything bad = Non Government.
Exactly. Employed by STALIN. That was THEIR approach to it. It's not THE approach to it
I'm pretty sure that is THE approach to it. Marx, the founder of Communism said that there are three stages of communism. the revolution to destroy capitalism, the raw Communism of which the populace are controlled by a totalitarian regime. and then pure Communism where we all live with out government . this is exactly what Stalin and Mao tired to do subtract the last part because they had no attention of actually fulfilling that part
Read it and weep - everything good = Government. Everything bad = Non Government
the most idiotic un thought narrow minded argument so far. your accusation is comparable to a little kid saying his candy bar is better and there is no possible way he is wrong.
socialism requires government influence and control, capitalism requires non government influence to grow.
so every thing good is government? so the Nazi party, the death of 6 million Jews, nukes, communist oppression, colonialism, war, etc. that is all good?
because of course you sheeple of the government, nothing bad has come from government, and the acts of goodness done from individuals out side government influence have never been good such as charities and the such don't exist.
why don't you read and learn before the next statement you post.
so every thing good is government? so the Nazi party, the death of 6 million Jews, nukes, communist oppression, colonialism, war, etc. that is all good?
LMAO!!!! AHAHAHAHAAAA
I'm saying that America's economy was made great because of 'socialism' and made worse due to 'capitalism'. WTF has nazism, NUKES?? COLONIALISM got to do with all this??
Marx is the founder of Marxist communism. Communism has and always will thrive in human civilisation with or without marx.
you said that every thing good came from government, so i asked if these things that came form government, were they good?
as for socialism, there has not been one country where the people enjoy complete government control over industry and commerce.
people like to own their production and resources. as for communism, there has not been one successful country who has thrived and stayed alive with it.
so how is this government controlled business successful and good?
Firstly let me make it clear I'm not all for completely controlled government. I just prefer socialism over capitalism. There has not been one country where people enjoy no government control over industry and commerce.
There has not been once successful country that has thrived and stayed alive with anything technically. Name me one nation or civilisation that has survived forever and your sentence may make sense.
so how is this government controlled business successful and good?
Ask the deregulated banks who begged the government for billions of dollars to save the economy.
i don't need a nation who has survived for ever, for non have. all i need is history to show you that socialist or communist governments fall quickly and faster then capitalistic countries.
and the bank asking for money, sure it may solve a short time problem but look what happens when the bank is bailed out by government, taxes go up to pay for the deficit and the government has more control over our money decreasing are freedom. so in the long end there has not been one successful nation where the bank is owned by the government.
and i think helping a bank by just swiping its debt is no way to solve the problem. government is ignorant of the needs of people and the outcomes that happen from actions they take, i mean, how cant they be? how can a few thousand lead a few million, its to hard to be done. one person should rule one person, that is. them selves. that is the libertarian stance on politics.
history to show you that socialist or communist governments fall quickly and faster then capitalistic countries.
Really? Where??
European nations are mostly socialists. They're garaunteed to last longer than America.
You're right - I don't agree with the bank bailout. But it was the capitalists begging for money. It was the capitalists who realised the weaknesses in the system and needed the stronger system to bail them out.
one person should rule one person, that is. them selves. that is the libertarian stance on politics.
Realistically can't be done. I wish it could - but it can't.
really where? communist Russia, Nazi Germany, and the roman empire.
yes while countries have socialist attributes, they are still largely more capitalist. there are only a few fully on socialist countries such as Greenland who have populations no bigger then a a hundred thousand. them, like the Amish, live in small societies where socialism works ok, but as you get larger more problems occur.
as for a person ruling them selves, it is realistic, people do it every day by making their own decisions and leading their own life. but political, yes, this will take time.
as for the whole if people agreed to pay government, that is what I'm trying to get at, if people wanted to pay government there would be no need for taxation, again, taxation is used to justify the government taking by force the property of an other human being.
really where? communist Russia, Nazi Germany, and the roman empire.
yes while countries have socialist attributes, they are still largely more capitalist. there are only a few fully on socialist countries such as Greenland who have populations no bigger then a a hundred thousand. them, like the Amish, live in small societies where socialism works ok, but as you get larger more problems occur.
as for a person ruling them selves, it is realistic, people do it every day by making their own decisions and leading their own life. but political, yes, this will take time.
as for the whole if people agreed to pay government, that is what I'm trying to get at, if people wanted to pay government there would be no need for taxation, again, taxation is used to justify the government taking by force the property of an other human being.
and European countries guaranteed to last longer? seems not likely with the whole euro problem going on, all ready Greece and Portugal next are bankrupt. and it looks like the epidemic is spreading.
No. European countries are largely socialist. Please don't even think about bullshiting that.
Greece and Portugal's problems are difficult to explain but it's a mix of different issues, most notably being hedge funds which is the result of?? That's right - capitalism.
if people wanted to pay government there would be no need for taxation
People WANT to pay government lmao. They don't like seeing their money go out of their bank accounts but they would HATE the consequences of no tax and no government. It doesn't take a fool to understand that much.
you are the one bullshitting. look it up and you will see that all European countries are capitalist first. then say they have socialist attributes after. so shut up about it your wrong.
as for hedge funds causing bankruptcy its origins started in socialism, how? by Europe wanting to form one currency that could be easier controlled by the government, remember, any government interference in commerce is socialism and thats what the forming of the united euro was.
as for your last paragraph, it has no substance or meaning, you simple restated what i had said earlier, that is people want to pay government but not have to be reminded its a forced thing and that consequences occur if they don't.
as for no tax and no government, it doesn't take a fool for the majority of us to agree that we dislike taxation and that there are other methods around. as hmm, i don't know, maybe no taxation?
We may all dislike taxation but we know it's necessary. Those who think it's not necessary are not just stupid (or incredibly rich) but have no idea what tax is and what it's used for. As soon as people see (or experience) a nation built without tax or a nation without tax then they'll immediately start begging for tax again. The world doesn't have 30 years every generation to spend teaching people they need tax.... so you just make it a basic and justified law. Simples.
All countries originally start out either communist or socialist or something from that premise. Less government intervention etc. is relatively new.
again you are wrong. government can survive with out taxing its people, the united states did it till the civil war. the result of a non taxing government is just a smaller weaker one, one most people want. the government will then have to stay in the boundaries of its job and not try to expand outwards and take more power. because its power is limited by its wealth.
government is a business, it invest and steals and lies and builds and sells. and it never does any thing that does not benefit it.
So if it's a business... then it what it's doing is legal amirite?
I understand what you're saying btw. We can easily look at the government as a business... except for the part where you can vote the leaders (board of directors) in and out of office - which is what socialist countries do...
well no its not legal, i simple refereed it to business, not meaning it is actual one that is legitimate.
as for the last part. well yeah, if a country still clings to democracy it usually has free elections socialist or not. so I'm not do sure what the argument was here?
I'm only arguing for the sake of arguing. Got to do something while I'm online other than crack on off right?
Capitalism may be a quicker path to the end, but will always lead to thousands of holes on the way. Socialism may be a slower but definate path to that end. Ya liiiikkee??
lol again you have still failed to answer my first question. i have noting wrong with giving the government money according to what i feel like giving. but since i live in a government owned land. i am forced to pay taxes. i am not giving or investing on my own will, i am giving and investing against my will making the forceful seizure of my money theft. if mother Tressa demanded money for the poor and then used threats like jail and persecution, would we still think of her the same? no. even though she had a good intention, she used the wrong means to get there. so again. taxation is theft.
and on a other note which you got me interested in. who says government owns the land? i think i will make a debate about that.
lol again you have still failed to answer my first question. i have noting wrong with giving the government money according to what i feel like giving. but since i live in a government owned land. i am forced to pay taxes. i am not giving or investing on my own will, i am giving and investing against my will making the forceful seizure of my money theft. if mother Tressa demanded money for the poor and then used threats like jail and persecution, would we still think of her the same? no. even though she had a good intention, she used the wrong means to get there. so again. taxation is theft.
and on a other note which you got me interested in. who says government owns the land? i think i will make a debate about that.
and i love the classic authoritarian response you people use. if you don't like it leave. i cant believe we call our selves Americans and still use that Hitler/Stalin/roman emperor quote.
it doesn't matter if they give it back. if a robber takes your money, and then gives it back, you would still call the taking of the money theft.
you need better arguments, these are elementary ones.
if i don't want to give my money up, and there is consequences for not giving my money against my own will, it is theft, because it is taken forcefully and against my own will.
it doesn't matter if they give it back. if a robber takes your money, and then gives it back, you would still call the taking of the money theft.
In English law, theft was codified into a statutory offence in the Theft Act 1968 which defines it as:
"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". (Section 1)
The government gives you back the money by providing services and protection.
(face palm) what the government does is like what parents to with young kids.
that is that they get a allowance but then the grownups tell them what they can do with it. meaning the parents are just indirectly buying the products through the money they gave their kids. so you like the idea that the government indirectly tells you what to do with your money?
if so. then i guess we really don't need to continue debating, i mean we really covered all the subjects. and it was a enjoyably week of arguing with you...but if you have more, i will be here ready.
They don't indirectly tell me what to do with my money. People can vote and, thus, decide the things that they would like to spend tax dollars on. You may not get your way all the time, but that's democracy. By continuing to drive on the roads that, they provide, going into buildings, that they provide, turning on the water, which they partially provide, going to school, that they provide, I am approving of what they use their money for.
Your example is not good. The parents don't tell their kids what to buy with their money, nor does the government.
You just restated the original point. You didn't respond to my objection: that you guys are twisting words.
And many things are illegal to lawmakers. They are held accountable via a system of checks and balances. The constitution, the judicial system, and the voting public all limit what they can do.
And many things are illegal to lawmakers. They are held accountable via a system of checks and balances. The constitution, the judicial system, and the voting public all limit what they can do.
If you want to argue that taxes are bad, argue that taxes are bad. But don't give me this wordplay shit. "If we define abortion as 'baby killing', then we can see that abortion is obviously wrong."
okay, so what you're saying is that the Bill of Rights are not being violated because the government makes it legal. I mean, in order for the bill of rights to be violated the government would have to be doing something illegal. But as Nixon said "When the president does it, it's not against the law".
The government can make a law making it legal for them to take away all of your property without just cause, and that would be lawful, because the government made it legal. You're forgetting that there is a Constitutional law that can never be changed, and yes, the government breaks it all the time.
If the legislature successfully passes an amendment as per the process outlined in the Constitution, then yes that amendment would become the new law. This is why passing an amendment is so hard to do.
And the Constitution expressly authorizes taxation, so I don't think your argument makes sense.
Nixon was wrong. If you'll recall, he was forced out of office.
The courts have the power to invalidate unconstitutional laws. If the government took my property without cause, the judicial system would almost certainly restore it. You may disagree with a judge's opinion regarding what laws are constitutional, but it's not true that lawmakers violate the Constitution all the time. You're also wrong when you say the Constitution can't be changed -- it can be changed through amendments.
Changed, but only when they add more laws that PROTECT our individual rights instead of limiting them more. That's what was meant to happen in the first place. unfortunately, people think we have too much freedom and therefore push laws that only limit them. The Bill of Rights, specifically, has been tampered with too much by law makers and the judges. Sotomayor, herself, has no respect for the Bill of Rights, and she is a Supreme Court Justice.
no your off. laws our different according to society.
what i was saying is that libertarians have laws, so that the rich don't oppress, and etc.
we have one law. that is the hindering a person form utilizing his full freedom. that means slavery, theft, assault, rape, so forth, is illegal in a libertarian society.
and lol. i never said that the constitution cant be changed. in fact i advocate that the constitution was made to be changed.
lol sorry, well any argument on my debate appears so i thought it was at me.
as for laws different to society, it means this. in the middle east women have very little social status in some areas and if they are caught it adultery they are dragged through the village on a donkey with their hands cut off. while here, it just results in divorce.
I'm sorry u don't like the name. i suppose that the a better name would of been TAXATION is THEFT. but i liked the idea of paradoxically words playing off each other so, i did it.
Well if you called the debate "taxation is theft" I still would've made the same objection: The words are the same in some respects but different in others. Paying attention only to the similarities between the two while ignoring the differences obscures the issue. I understand what you're getting at, but it's just not a fair way to debate. I think a less biased way to approach the issue would be to ask if taxation is justified.
the whole point of my statement is that its political correct, which makes it logically incorrect. this type of wording is called doublethink, that is a paradox of two things that don't work but our put to gather to work. this is what government has done, legalized theft. if you have comprehended this then congrats, if not i will be expecting an other weak mustered rebuttal form you soon.
and way to to and take it to an extreme with a lame argument like well pollution can cause murder.
u people give this guy points because of a half sensed smart ass rebuttal?
the whole point of my statement is that its political correct, which makes it logically incorrect.
Which makes no sense.
this type of wording is called doublethink, that is a paradox of two things that don't work but our put to gather to work.
And a wonderful example of doublethink is conflating a legal and mutually complicit practice with an illegal, non-complicit practice, and conceiving them as the same thing. Y''know, like taxation being legalized theft.
this is what government has done, legalized theft.
Right: doublethink.
u people give this guy points because of a half sensed smart ass rebuttal?
lol perhaps a little to harsh on the response, your humor intrigues me.
as for the statement you said that makes no sense. it goes like this, things that people say are sometimes deemed political incorrect. such as calling a gay is politically incorrect, the right term would be different life style choice, when well, their still gay. that is the example i use in my upper statement, make any sense now?
As Nixon said: "If the president does it, it's not against the law".
When someone takes your property or money against your will, we would call it theft. But when the president (or the government in general) does it, we call it taxation. As I stated, taxation to a small extent can be justified since it pays for a basic necessities for maintaining the state which we live in; but government has far surpassed that maintenance. The FCC regulates what you can and can't say on air... it's something that's legal and mutually complicit... but according the first amendment, that's illegal. But government has a pretty good way of incorporating doublethink.
When someone takes your property or money against your will, we would call it theft.
Yep.
But when the president (or the government in general) does it, we call it taxation
There is a distinction, it's not against your will. By continued participation in a society where its citizens are taxed, you're agreeing to its codified mores by maintaining residence in said society, and are in agreement with its laws. As you state below, and I have disputed on the other side of the isle, we're mutually complicit. And that complicity removes the notion of theft from the debate - necessarily. Now, you can be frustrated with having your money taken, but there's no legitimate argument to be made that it is actually theft.
If taxation was merely your complicity to stay in a society, why don't they just deport you if you don't pay taxes instead of throwing you in jail where you can be raped and shanked? Oh right, because they still need you to pay for their shit, eventually. Or, it's to make an example of you so that others will go along with their taxing system. Taxation pays for residence? What if your family was among the very first settlers? They owned this land before anyone decided to create government and start taxing people. Are you saying that it's right for government to take over, kick people out of their homes and demand that they pay up or go to jail (where they can be sodomized and murdered)? Holy shit!
I understand the whole "pay to maintain the free state". The second Amendment gave government the right to provide a well regulated militia for just that purpose. And yes, as citizens who receive the individual rights, we need to help pay for that regulated militia since it helps maintain our freedom. But to somehow justify what taxation has become with that small bit of fact is over the line, sir.
Taxation goes to:
giving politicians an income, complete health benefits, security, transportation, food, etc.
building statues
building stadiums
building "monuments"
wasteful programs
making it easier for cops to ticket people for even more revenue
free gas for any government employee who "needs" transportation
and a shit load of other stuff that most would consider "not important for maintaining a free state".
But an interesting thing you pointed out. What can we do about it? If we don't comply, they can buttfuck us (by putting us in a place where we will get buttfucked). And instead of people getting outraged, most of them will be like you and try to make up excuses for the government and their irresponsible use of power. It's funny, the founding fathers did fear the masses... because they knew that they would just let government become tyrannical again. They kind of want it that way, anyway. Fuckin' people.
giving politicians an income, complete health benefits, security, transportation, food, etc.
building statues...and a shit load of other stuff that most would consider "not important for maintaining a free state".
Your argument is biased. You only mentioned the bad things about taxes. What about: schools, protection(police, fire, and military), waste clean-up, buildings, roads, etc.
Most people can not choose their electric company. But even so, if the utilities are competitive, how does this help your argument about public services?
If taxation was merely your complicity to stay in a society...
I never said it was any such thing. I asserted that you have tacitly agreed to the laws of the society you live in by remaining and participating in that society. That is called complicity, and complicity precludes the issue of theft when it comes to taxation. And reading your response, I can see that you don't actually have a counter argument to that point. When you have that argument, please feel free to provide it.
You're right. It's almost impossible to argue against the point that taxation is theft as long as you wish to remain in your home and not die... in your words, complicity to remain and participate in society. Oh wait, even with my new argument, I already pointed out "why don't they just deport you instead of putting you in a prison where you are BUTT FUCKED and MURDERED."
Right... not theft, but coercion. If you wanna get all specific about it ~_~
wait, that's two arguments now that's SPECIFICALLY a rebuttal to the point you were making. but only one is new :O
Oh, I get it. Deportation is to jail. Jail isn't a place where they hold you, but a place where they send you. I forgot how people are free to leave once they pay their taxes, or free to leave in general, since it's not part of the country.
my God your argument is horribly flawed, i'm just making fun of you. I mean, I understand what you're trying to say, but it came out so shitty and with holes it's hard not to just say all this shit.
I guess I should also point to how your argument is a lot like the "love it or leave it" argument. We have a problem with what the government is doing, and instead of trying to justify their actions by maybe pointing out how it's good... you're saying "if you don't like the taxes, you should either leave the country or go to jail". assuming we make it out in time.
but why argue the violation of individual rights that the government does? Love it or leave it, man. "but the Constitution..." no man, love it or leave it. "but I love the Constitution, not the rape that the government did to it". you don't understand... love it or leave it. "damn, you sure are good at debate".
That's why we live in a country that allows you to vote on issues.
It's not love it or leave it, it's love it, leave it, or try and change it. I can guarantee you that black people didn't love our country for a long time, but fortunately they worked to change the laws.
Black people didn't vote on the issue of slavery... in fact, it was the white man who worked for their freedom. They had NO say in whether they will be slaves or not. They didn't even have the ability to leave.
Democracy killed Socrates and banished Plato. It's not that great. It merely gives power to the masses (which the Founding Fathers did fear), which of course has resulted in banning gay marriage, ban on marijuana and prostitution, ban on gambling, strict abortion laws, the ability for government to take away your homes, the Patriot Act, etc. That's why the Constitution was written... unfortunately, the masses are too stupid to realize how much they vote against it.
Actually I was talking about Civil rights, however, if you want to talk about the role blacks played in freeing slaves I would recommend watching the movie Glory, or if you don't have the time this video:
Drunk History featuring Will Ferrell and Don Cheadle
In Glory, they were given the option to help fight in the war. Also, many were drafted. They were segregated, lulz. Also, blacks fought on the other side, helping the Confederates, which gave them individual freedom if they fought for a certain amount... or, slave owners sent slaves in their place.
But it was the white man who played the most part in ending slavery. Blacks were merely pawns, if you want to refer to black soldiers.
In Glory, they were given the option to help fight in the war
And? I'm not sure how this contribution was different from the white soldiers.
Are you arguing that because whites were in power it was them who essentially set the blacks free? I mean I never argued that white people didn't play a role, but that blacks also had some part in it. Fredrick Douglas is one example of someone who made a real difference by talking to Lincoln.
It's like literally everything I say you misconstrue... what's up with that?
because you're claiming that somehow blacks had a an actual role in their freedom. Being a soldier in a war that they did not start is not much of a role in a bill that is passed. Yes, they fought for what they believed in, but would it have made a difference if they didn't fight? hardly.
it's like everything i say you misconstrue... what's up with that?
Just continue to ignore the fact that Fredrick Douglas and other blacks actually did play a part in convincing Lincoln to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. Also continue to belittle the efforts of black soldiers. Whatever you need to do to maintain your worldview.
It was also through the effort of Republicans and Extremist Republicans who in general have been wanting this for awhile. Republicans were anti-extentionalists and extremist republicans were abolitionists. The Emancipation Proclamation was a long thing coming ever since the Republican Party was formed. The Civil War just gave them a good opportunity to do so.
I'm not disputing that the Republicans didn't play an extremely large role in the freedom of slaves: obviously they did. What I am saying though is that blacks (such as Fredrick Douglas) also played a role. Rarely can the cause of a major event be simplified to the point that there is only a single cause, and while it may help you argue your point to say that there was only one cause, doing so is intellectually dishonest.
By your argument we shouldn't really give Neil Armstrong for getting to the moon since someone else would have done it if he wasn't there. In fact, why do we honor any soldiers? Any person could have easily have been in their position.
Come on, give me break. Blacks did fight and die for their freedom, and they at least deserve acknowledgment.
I never said that blacks weren't brave people who fought for what they felt was right (half of them, at least, the other half were forced to fight). That's obvious. But they did not play any strong role in the eventual freedom of slaves. You keep on mentioning Fredrick Douglas as if he were the straw that broke the Camel's back, but he wasn't. Yeah, he wrote some letters. A shit load of people told Lincoln a shit load of things. But the Republicans' agenda was already to free the slaves. The Civil War merely gave them a good opportunity to do so. Even so, the Emancipation Proclamation did not completely stop slavery, it was just a push to crack down on the enemy (allies were not forced to give up slaves).
I guess I should also point to how your argument is a lot like the "love it or leave it" argument
It's not like that argument at all. Please stop retreating to a straw man, for your intellectual comfort.
you're saying "if you don't like the taxes, you should either leave the country or go to jail".
I'm simply asserting that if you don't want to be taxed by the government of the country you are in, then you are free to leave that country. I don't care if you love it, like it, or want to marry it. But as long as you choose of your own will to remain in a country where there is a tax system, then you are in agreement with its contract and are obligated to pay those taxes.
So instead of making a debate about how bad or good taxes are, your argument is "if you don't like the taxes, you are free to leave".
No. First, the issue of this debate isn't about whether taxes are good or bad, but whether taxes are equivalent to theft. Second, please stop putting words in my mouth. Third, if you don't have an argument addressing the issue of the debate, we're done.
You said it's not theft because it's part of the law that we are agreeing to abide by by living here.
So, when young woman were forced to sleep with the pope or had to face banishment or execution, it wasn't rape, because they could have just left their town.
you just don't seem to understand what I'm saying... at all. your argument is basically "you don't have an argument". good one, dude.
yes some one who gets it. but still again i stress. if we agreed to pay the government for security it would not be a tax, it would be a donation. which i have nothing wrong with.
It's not about agreement, it's the law. The US constitution not only stressed the importance of individual rights, but also the importance of maintaining a Free State. This is how taxation (in order to provide security) can be justified. Now, an Anarcho-Capitalist can try and argue that privatized paramilitaries can provide a free state, but that's an entirely different debate that would lead to "Anarchy vs. Government". I am merely a person who highly advocates the Constitution (especially the Bill of Rights).
will thats where I'm at, being a libertarian in this society would be imposable, instead i am a different brand of them. we advocate small government to the point of only security and being a representative for foreign affairs. thats all we need. the rest can be privatized and managed by us the people. we did it for 100 years before the civil war and 200 before the Constitution was even wrote.
Alright, you want a dispute? ITS NOT THEFT!!! The government is not just taking your money away from you and using it on its own interests. These services are in place to help you. If you don't like it, you don't have to live here. It's like when you're parents put some of your money away for you when you're little for college. They're not taking it away from you, they're doing something that will help you with it. And, alright, say, it is theft; its theft you agree to by living in this country. Once again, if you have a problem with it...and if not from the government, then where do we get this money from then, because not every town can afford to pay for their own services. That's why the system is in place the way it is: so everyone may receive these services. And, by the way, I didn't downpoint you just because I disagree. I disputed it. I don't know who's doing that on your side but its childish. If you're gonna downpoint me, explain why.
govt...not is not an illigal thing......money should be there with the govt for doing things for the state.......govt will get money only from the people.....so if we want a woking govt, we are responsible for giving tax........
Considering that a lot of taxes are voted for by the people and/or the money you give to the government comes back to you in one way or another, it's really just lending.
Sorry, to burst the bubble, but under no circumstances, the people are allowed to vote taxes into law or for that matter, any kind of law. That is strictly reserved to local, state and federal government officials.
Referendums can serve as a recommendation for government leaders to act accordingly.
Unfortunately, you are still incorrect because the public didn't write or vote on the law. Instead, Arizona voters approved Proposition 100, which means voters didn't actually write the law, it was still law created by the state legislature, and ask for confirmation by the public through a Proposition called 100. Arizona Media
Of course they didn't create it, but they voted for it so the majority of the people aren't getting their money stolen because they obviously want to pay the tax to support their schools.
if people wanted to pay the government money there would be no need for taxation. taxation is used to tax the people who don't want to pay and then the government justifies it with noble reasons. no noble right ends overshadows a unjust fair means, period.
You can probably frame tax as paying off debt to the goverment, the goverment builds roads, schools other things which positively effect society. If the goverment is seen as a financial institution, then daily we take out a secured loan by useing its services which then needs to be payed. The only problem is the monopoly government has in some areas, which might be preferable to other options and might not. There are several ways which taxation can be framed which puts a different spin on it, I'm not sure which one i want to use.
When a criminal steals something from you, you get zero benefits from it. My garmin was recently stolen from me, do you know what I got from that? The inability to navigate. This is not a benefit.
However, when the government collects your tax money, you generally get a benefit in some form or another from it. For instance, when you are old and can no longer take good care of yourself, you might be thankful that medicare exists. When that robber decides that it's time to kill you and your family, you might suddenly think that the tax money that pays for the police sure is nice to pay.
When you drive to work in the morning, you might want to consider that the roads you drove upon were paid for by taxes, and your car is really only tolerably safe because of strict government regulations on the car industry... so, keep that in mind, too.
Taxes do a lot for you, and a lot more for big corporations. That network of interstates serves Wal-Mart to the tune of several more billion a year than it does me, so, don't even get on your flat tax bullcrap.
Now, compound all of that with the fact that the entire system of currency that you even use, and those dollars you "earn" and love so much are in fact not even "yours" to begin with. You are borrowing them for use from the government, that's why they put their own faces and monuments on them. Those dollars aren't yours, they are only representative of what you have done as perceived by others... and when the government wants you to assign some of your work-reward back to it, it has every right to demand it, since it establishes the system by which you profit.
Example:
Everyone who comes to my swimming pool and enjoys the waters and the rights to operate hotdog stands and be guarded by lifeguards must pay $3 to get in and continue enjoying said benefits. This allows me to pay my lifeguard so he can eat a hotdog every once in a while and keep my pool clean and safe. If you operate a hotdog stand on my pool grounds, I'm asking for another dollar because I have to clean up after you and let your suppliers in, as well as make a "no eating hotdogs in the pool water" rule that I have to enforce.
Since you make a lot more than the average pool denizen, you should be very happy to hand over that extra dollar.
And if you don't like it? GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY POOL (AKA, go somewhere else to do your business and work).
Well, that's an awful lot of writing for post so lacking in substance =/
From what I gather, your argument is
1. Taxation is not theft because we get stuff back from them
2. The government prints money and forces us to use their currency; therefore we owe them labor...
OK, so with 1 the problem is a lack of understanding on your part. You can steal a purse from one person and get whatever is in the purse, but if you're going to do the same to millions of people you're going to have to convince them that it's in there best interest to allow you to rob them.
Besides that, the government also now has the benefit of a coercive monopoly over all the most vital services.
The thing is, you don't need a group of small people with a vast geographical over claim to have a monopoly on police, roads, medical attention, food distribution etc. in order to have these things because if there is a large enough demand for these services that a government feels the need to enforce a violent monopoly then there is clearly a high enough demand that these things would be provided with or without such monopolies.
The reason is a simple as supply and demand, it's basic economics 101.
Now, on to number 2...
Just because the government has also forced a monopoly currency does not mean that you need; let alone OWE the government for this. You can have free-market currency and indeed there has been and still is.
What your saying here makes about as much sense as though a crazy general store owner is threatening to kill you unless you only buy what he sells and then telling your kids they should be grateful for the things the crazy general store owner does.
Sure, the store owner sells you goods and services, but then so could anyone else and in fact it's better to have other store owners because at least then you would have competition and an incentive lower prices down from the monopoly rate you would get by only having one insane store owner.
Your example proves nothing. you're talking about the free-market exchange between you (the pool owner) and everyone of whom both wants to swim and has the money to do so. This is unrelated to how government operates as you are not the only pool owner and you don't demand mandatory payment of every person living in the same country as you wheather they actually want to use your pool or not.
It's the same thing with letting other people sell hotdogs around your pool. They want to sell hotdogs, you want compensation so long as they do it on your property, but there's no coersion, you're nto forcing people to sell on your property just so you can force them to pay you. If they don't want to pay they can just open there stand a few feet off of your property but you can't do that with governments becuase they claim everything from coast to coast.
Yes, by definition, as per this debate, Taxation is not theft, it is Taxation. When you are stolen from, you do NOT get anything in return. There's a gulf of difference that you don't seem to be able to grasp for some reason.
As per your purse example, if they are ALLOWING me to take their purse, and I am providing a service in exchange for continued allowance, then I am NOT stealing their purse anymore.
As per your "crazy general store" owner example, all I can say is, "What?" ... do you actually read what you type on here?
If you don't want to pay taxes, DON'T EARN MONEY and DON'T OWN PROPERTY in this country. That's how you get out of it. Move to another country that doesn't charge taxes for anything (protip: there's not one). Or you could be homeless, or earn so little income that you can afford to rent a crappy house and pay for food and that's it, and you won't be paying taxes under current US law. Actually, other people's taxes will likely pay for quite a large portion of your food.
The US Government has never forced me to do anything. "Paying Taxes" is a CONDITIONAL CONTRACT between law abiding citizens and the government. When you pick up that piece of currency and put it into your pocket, you are acknowledging the powers that be... otherwise, LEAVE THE DOLLAR ALONE.
Again, tax avoidance:
1) Earn so little you pay no tax.
2) Move to another country.
3) Join a religious order and live life at a monastery or commune.
4) Become homeless.
You don't like those things? Everything else that exists here was built by a MAJORITY that agree that pitching in your share of the tax burden is expected, and reasonable. You don't think it's expected and reasonable? Don't use the roads we pay for, don't use the schools we pay for, etc.
"Yes, by definition, as per this debate, Taxation is not theft, it is Taxation."
>>Legalized mandatory extraction of money/goods
Theft > mandatory extraction of money/goods
The only difference is one is legalized; hence, legalized theft. And 2+2=4.
"When you are stolen from, you do NOT get anything in return. There's a gulf of difference that you don't seem to be able to grasp for some reason."
This isn't as complicated as your making it. If you want to steal from one person, all you need is force, but to control a nations worth of currency you need more than force. You need compliance. you need people to believe in the virtue of taxation otherwise it's impossible. If everyone in the united states decided not to pay their taxes next year the government could do nothing about it.
On a small-scale it would be like a thief taking your money, then giving you back some spare change so long as you willingly hand over your money again next time.
"As per your purse example, if they are ALLOWING me to take their purse, and I am providing a service in exchange for continued allowance, then I am NOT stealing their purse anymore."
You still don't understand. She is only allowing you to take her purse because you will kill and/or kidnap her if she doesn't and the only service she gets in return is the privilege of watching her money get used to create a coercive monopoly on all of the most vital services to a society.
You think the government provides police for your benefit? They do it so that they are the only ones in control of police protection. otherwise, why make it a coercive monopoly? If it really is just for our benefit and it really is our best option then there's no reason to make it mandatory. People will willingly pay for it themselves and indeed the very existence of government monopolized services like the police show how high of a demand there is for these services.
"If you don't want to pay taxes, DON'T EARN MONEY and DON'T OWN PROPERTY in this country."
Well, that's retarded. So your point is that if I really don't like taxation then the reasonable thing to do is damn myself to poverty? I pity anyone whom has honestly sought you out for advice.
"Move to another country that doesn't charge taxes for anything (protip: there's not one)."
I'm beginning to think that YOU don't read what you write. You recognize AND openly admit this point is a non-sequiter, yet you still post it as though it's meant to convince me of something. Have you ever even debated before? I only ask because you don't seem to grasp the subtleties of language and logical fallacies.
"Or you could be homeless, or earn so little income that you can afford to rent a crappy house and pay for food and that's it, and you won't be paying taxes under current US law. Actually, other people's taxes will likely pay for quite a large portion of your food."
You pretty much already said this about two sentences earlier. I'm beginning to think you're just trying to fill space.
Look, I'm not saying that people should dodge taxes, I'm saying there's no need for taxation and that, in fact, people would be better off without taxation.
"The US Government has never forced me to do anything. "Paying Taxes" is a CONDITIONAL CONTRACT between law abiding citizens and the government."
Oh really? I've never signed anything agreeing to this and I don't think you have either. It seems to me that just being born qualifies myself to pay mandatory offerings.
I was never given the option to opt out of government services so it can hardly be called voluntary. To me this sounds an awful lot like when my little sister would steal my toys, bring them into her room and state that since they are in her room they belong to her.
Didn't make much sense then either. ;)
"When you pick up that piece of currency and put it into your pocket, you are acknowledging the powers that be... otherwise, LEAVE THE DOLLAR ALONE."
So now because the government has forced a monopoly on means of currency I owe them the value of my labour that they place on their coercively monopolized currency?
"Again, tax avoidance:"
Again, it's not about tax avoidance. I'm not even sure how you got this out of what I wrote before. My only guess is that you didn't understand what I was talking about thus substituted a straw-man reason onto me so you could "out-debate" me on this topic.
"You don't like those things? Everything else that exists here was built by a MAJORITY that agree that pitching in your share of the tax burden is expected, and reasonable. You don't think it's expected and reasonable? Don't use the roads we pay for, don't use the schools we pay for, etc."
Well, that pretty much was my whole point. I CAN'T ,I repeat, CAN'T opt out of government services. I can't chose to pay for private school and NOT public schools. I can't choose to pay a privatized hospital and NOT a state-run hospital.
Understand, please. You don't NEED taxation to have these things. Look, you pay for roads and police because you want them, right? Would you still pay for them if payment wasn't mandatory? I bet you would.
And that's all that is needed. If people are willing to pay for a service then someone will supply it because there's money in it for them.
And if there's no monopoly on the service then there will be competition and incentive to improve on the service and make it more affordable.
And if paying for the service isn't mandatory then you don't have to pay for things you don't use. So money will ONLY go to were the people want it to go.
Now, doesn't that sound better than letting a few politicians take your money and hope for the best?
long post, but yes you are right. people seem to think if the government cant do it, no one can. well maybe one day when government topples they will realize they like the services they had beforehand and will find alternate ways to fulfill them like we are saying now.
mainly because the two go hand in hand. government lives off taking your property and bullshitting about how its for the greater good or some crap like that. once people wake up and decide they like their hard earned property, government will crap its pants.
Unless you can show me a time or place where sustainable anarchy has ever been better than our current system, you're forced to admit that they are right. Taxes are the sacrifice that we have to make in order to have the comfortable lifestyles that we have.
the Americas before the revolution where almost completely left alone by the British. the people elected leaders but heres the major part. they had no taxes and when they did. only people who wanted to pay taxes did. the others did not and they were left alone. if people needed some thing done such as a road built. they hired some one for the job. see you don't need taxation to do something.
if the government stopped with taxation and stopped giving out free meals and monopolizing public services. then we would choose and hire our own people to do it. just because a service stops does not mean people wont do any thing about it.
if garbage piled up in your street you would not let it sit there, you would hire some one to pick it up. things can be done whit out government, its surprising i know, but possible.
the Americas before the revolution where almost completely left alone by the British. the people elected leaders but heres the major part. they had no taxes and when they did. only people who wanted to pay taxes did. the others did not and they were left alone. if people needed some thing done such as a road built. they hired some one for the job. see you don't need taxation to do something.
Native Americans got along fine without taxes, so did the Aboriginals. It doesn't change the fact that such a social order has narrow contexts in which it can work, and in the context of a post-industrialised, modern society, you cannot drop government funding for infrastructure and just expect the private sector to take on the burden and provide reliable quality of service.
I shouldn't have to explain this to you, it's extremely obvious to anybody.
Native Americans got along fine without taxes, so did the Aboriginals. It doesn't change the fact that such a social order has narrow contexts in which it can work, and in the context of a post-industrialized, modern society, you cannot drop government funding for infrastructure and just expect the private sector to take on the burden and provide reliable quality of service.
that is not what I'm suggesting. as i said earlier it would be a slow process of becoming independent off government. does a child just move out of the house when he is born and get a job? no, that is unthinkable. the same is with government dependency.
that is not what I'm suggesting. as i said earlier it would be a slow process of becoming independent off government. does a child just move out of the house when he is born and get a job? no, that is unthinkable. the same is with government dependency.
On the slider of government dependence you have Saudi Arabia and North Korea as the far right and Somalia and Columbia as the far left. You cannot expect a society to function well with minimal government as is made abundantly clear with Somalia and Columbia. Further, light government leads us into monopolistic, buyer-beware societies like the North and South in the 19th century, and USA in the early twentieth.
most of this is irreverent. i know the political spectrum and its different government types.
minimal government as is made abundantly clear with Somalia and Columbia
umm that is not minimal government. that is warlord militant chaos, where the leader has complete control which is totalitarianism which is a lot of government. libertarianism is non or little government interaction and organized anarchy/capitalism.
umm that is not minimal government. that is warlord militant chaos, where the leader has complete control which is totalitarianism which is a lot of government. libertarianism is non or little government interaction and organized anarchy/capitalism.
Somalia has effectively no government, it is unstable and barely holding on with foreign support.
Without an effective government warlords were able to take over regions. Ergo anarchy leads to "might makes right" and people taking power without oversight.
In other words, government is necessary to avoid power vacuums because people cannot rule themselves.
we see government as two different things, while i see it as a organized central institution as our is. i also see it as any time some one is ruled by an other. for that is what government means, to govern over some one. so while we say Somalia and stuff have a weak government that is because they do not have a centralized organized institution like us. but they have militant factions still leading forces around. and i see this as just an other type of government. so whether it is considered government is debatable, but the fact that people are oppressed and ordered and abused by a greater power is the problem.
because while i still want weaker government control, i still believe are government is most definitely a better one then others.
so while we say Somalia and stuff have a weak government that is because they do not have a centralized organized institution like us. but they have militant factions still leading forces around. and i see this as just an other type of government. so whether it is considered government is debatable, but the fact that people are oppressed and ordered and abused by a greater power is the problem.
Whether or not you change terminology, the fact remains that weak governments can create power vacuums and are susceptible to militants who use force over ethics.
yes but the vacuum being there because of one lack of power over the other. a libertarian society would be careful to have a slow safe transition into smaller government.
yes but the vacuum being there because of one lack of power over the other. a libertarian society would be careful to have a slow safe transition into smaller government.
It doesn't matter how slow the transition is. It just won't be a vacuum, but instead the wealthy having power over people while a small and impotent government does nothing to stop it.
Taxes are what support the government and keep order. It's because of taxes, you can go to the Police if you're in trouble. In the UK (which is where I live), it's because of taxes, we get free healthcare, basically free TV and benefits.
You don't want to pay taxes? Then get out of the country.
Wow, your post is like reading out of a high-school civics textbook.
You don't NEED government to have police. Police exist in the first place because there is a demand for them. Would demand for police suddenly stop if taxation stopped tomorrow?
No, you DON'T have free health care. you pay for it with your taxes.
Leaving the country doesn't solve anything since all the other countries use taxation as well.
And what exactly funds the Police? Taxes which are controlled by the government. We'll always need Police, but without taxes, they won't be able to run. If theoretically, you got rid of taxes, then the Police would have to turn into a business to be able to survive, and start charging for what they do, which I for one, don't want. Plus if it was to make it's own money, then criminal could easily make "donations" and suddenly become innocent.
Well, technically it's not free but you're not really paying for it. You pay taxes and tax go towards health care. However, in some countries you have to pay for your own health insurance or be charge a LOT of money when you need help.
True but at least you wouldn't be whining about how this government works.
"And what exactly funds the Police? Taxes which are controlled by the government."
...Uh, I never said they weren't. What's your point?
"We'll always need Police, but without taxes, they won't be able to run."
That's like saying "We'll always need shoes, but unless the government forces a coercive monopoly and mandatory payments, nobody will be able to have shoes.".
Where are people getting this idea that only the government can supply these services? XD
"If theoretically, you got rid of taxes, then the Police would have to turn into a business to be able to survive, and start charging for what they do, which I for one, don't want."
Wow, that is a profoundly ignorant statement. You're honestly the first statist I've debated whom honestly thinks monopolies are better than competitive businesses.
Look, when you have a monopoly you are able to charge for your service at monopoly rates. Which means you can charge more for your service while providing as little as necessary to maximize profits. The only limit to how high you can charge and how crappy your service can be is when people opt out; as in, they would rather not have the service than get it from you. But when you take things one step further and make payment for the service mandatory you extend the limit to whenever the population starts getting violent.
Without a monopoly, not only are all of these problems avoided but you get the added benefit of companies working to out-do each other in terms of service quality and affordability.
Now, exactly which part of better police at cheaper prices sounds worse to you?
"Plus if it was to make it's own money, then criminal could easily make "donations" and suddenly become innocent. "
"it"? Criminals are people too =p
A person can always bribe an officer. That's just a fact of life and having a government monopoly on police doesn't change this fact.
The only difference is with a monopolized police system if they don't punish the officer for taking the bribe there isn't much you can do about it because you can't chose to pay a different service and you can't even chose to just NOT pay the monopolized service. But, if there were many police agencies then if one was corrupt people could chose to simply NOT hire them and watch as their company goes bankrupt.
"Well, technically it's not free but you're not really paying for it. "
No. There's no "technically". You ARE paying for it and it's NOT free.
"You pay taxes and tax go towards health care. However, in some countries you have to pay for your own health insurance or be charge a LOT of money when you need help."
You're still paying a ton whether your health care comes from tax or pocket. This is a matter of comparing one coercive monopoly with a slightly different coercive monopoly, NOT comparing a coercive monopoly to a free market hospital.
"True but at least you wouldn't be whining about how this government works."
Not true. I currently live in Canada, but I still talk about the U.S. model, the U.K. model, the Russian model, etc.
Theft is the act of taking property from someone against their permission, with the additional stipend that it must also be illegal to do so.
For example, towing the vehicle of a man who lost his license would be against his permission possibly, but is not theft because it is authorised by the state to do so.
Taxes might be against the consent or permission of the people, but it is mandated (authorised) by the state and so cannot be theft.
if murder was allowed by the government would it not be murder? regardless of who allows it or enforces it it is still theft. don't think its not because government says its not.
first of all are government does not allow assassination and that is debatable of being murder or not. as for killing in war, that is not murder that is fighting and defending your self. murder is the killing of a non combatant. people who go to war should know the price that can come from it.
as for taxation. it is still theft, as i said and you choose to ignore, i receive punishment for not paying taxes that i must against my own will meaning regardless of what the government says it is still theft. i have nothing wrong with giving the government money but on my own will.
first of all are government does not allow assassination and that is debatable of being murder or not
You might want to do some more research into our nation's history of covert ops and destabilising countries we don't like.
as for killing in war, that is not murder that is fighting and defending your self. murder is the killing of a non combatant. people who go to war should know the price that can come from it.
In war, killing is sanctioned under certain circumstances and is therefore not murder.
as for taxation. it is still theft, as i said and you choose to ignore, i receive punishment for not paying taxes that i must against my own will meaning regardless of what the government says it is still theft. i have nothing wrong with giving the government money but on my own will.
Is taxation legal? That's all that matters here. Your will on the matter is irrelevant, just like whether a person wants to die has no bearing on whether war is murder.
this is a good counter argument i will admit. it has made me think about it. i am not entirely the narrow minded god fearing man you think i am from are other debates.
while i feel taxes are an abusive unfair way of taking my money regardless if it is for good or not. we have hit into a good example of the same being for dying in battle.
but again i say people go into war expecting death to be a effect of it. and war is an extreme example argument to mine. usually before war we try negotiating and finding peace terms. but with taxes the only negotiating is how much we can give them.
i feel then that taxes should only be used for in extreme circumstances like when a draft is used for war. because honestly do we need this amount of are money taken for who knows what the government does? we don't need to be global police and if the people of America feel its time we stop then we have that right. to much we give the president the power to choose for us.
this is a good counter argument i will admit. it has made me think about it. i am not entirely the narrow minded god fearing man you think i am from are other debates.
I never said I thought that about you. I actually just think you're young and lack my experience.
i feel then that taxes should only be used for in extreme circumstances like when a draft is used for war. because honestly do we need this amount of are money taken for who knows what the government does? we don't need to be global police and if the people of America feel its time we stop then we have that right. to much we give the president the power to choose for us.
Taxes are used to provide infrastructure maintenance like roads, power lines, water, and so on. The money also covers medicare and medicaid for the poor and elderly, as well as public schooling, subsidies for agriculture and certain industries, as well as government positions and city jobs like police, firefighters, and senators, politicians, etc. Then there's military research, and the war machine, espionage, etc.
Minimal taxes starves all of this. We pay for this so that we have the protection of civilisation.
lol but almost all of those things you mentioned can just be privatized. then there wont be starvation for them. like i said i have argued already about it. its just whether you think people can handle privatized services or if government should do it. thats the main line. mainstreamed or private.
o and a other thing, assassination is illegal. the times you may here of one happening is a crime and they are usually punished. what are CIA do in other countries is stage coups and the stuff to do things for them. the CIA rarely gets it's hands dirty in a fight they can have locals do for them.
but then the commandos who we send like the green berets. well they are questionable.
o and a other thing, assassination is illegal. the times you may here of one happening is a crime and they are usually punished. what are CIA do in other countries is stage coups and the stuff to do things for them. the CIA rarely gets it's hands dirty in a fight they can have locals do for them.
but then the commandos who we send like the green berets. well they are questionable.
Our government is large and very powerful, so it's to be expected that it has committed all sorts of internationally illegal acts, as well as atrocities and dealings with unethical figures.
We have a history of installing and providing support to despots especially in South America. We could be called the incidental fathers of al Qaeda, since we trained and supported the men who formed it, we have attempted and carried out assassinations so many times that it's not even interesting. That it was made illegal by presidential order just means we support in more covert ways. We use drug money to fund the CIA. We have experimented on our own, innocent citizens with drugs designed as prototype truth serums.
Anyway, I'm just saying that I don't trust those in power to be anything less than sneaky.
o i am well a where of are meddling. especially the fact that we had the great idea of uniting all of the militant fanatic Muslims in the world and then organize them into a fight force and never thought they would bite back at the hand that feed them.
but i still feel there is honesty and morality in the government, despite popularity of the media and stuff saying the government is trying to back stab you, i still think in most cases the paranoia we have of them is overplayed and that they for the most part, they don't have much to gain for turning on their country. or doing un ethical things
The principal function of the state is to guarantee the security of markets, without which modern economy cannot function. The state does this by enforcing all sorts of contracts through its legal system, and through the use of military and civilian force to defend personal and corporate property rights. As importantly, the state creates and maintains infrastructure required for the movement of goods and services. Even social services provided by the state are principally directed toward the creation of useful labor for production.
Taxation is a point of connection between two mutually dependent systems.
Depends, seeing as the government gives a "service" in return it's not theft. People receive services from firefighters, cops, ERs, parks, and roads in return for paying taxes.
So it's more like making people buy some shit they may or may not want.
Yeah....if it was just cops, firefighters, roads, the armed forces ect...that would be great. Virtually everyone wants the basic services and protections that organized government has traditionally offered. The problem arises when it ends up being billions for other countries, billions for banks and car companies, billions for social programs, billions for people that are not even citizens of our country......It's actualy more like making people buy some of the shit that they want and a whole lotta shit that they dont' want or need.
This anarchy libertarian tea-party bs is getting out of control. Will you all please crawl back in your holes? I realize having a black president has rallied the racists among you, and Faux is treating you like a legitimate movement, but you are a group of idiots who if you ever had power would destroy the country.
Taxes are essential for any society. We pay taxes as part of a society, in return we get order. Theft is taking something, with nothing in return.
That one likes to cry about taxes and pretend they are some cosmic victim, does not make taxes theft.
Hey David! I haven't seen you since you shied away from our last debate but I'm glad to see you're still trying your hand at the political stuff. ;)
"Taxes are essential for any society. We pay taxes as part of a society, in return we get order."
No, we pay taxes so we don't end up living like some sort up sentient blow up doll trapped in a room full of sexually frustrated serial rapists with a fetish for silicone.
Just because I wont shoot you in the kneecap so long as you give me $20 doesn't mean I've given you a well working leg to stand on. ;)
"Theft is taking something, with nothing in return."
Well, no corrections to make here. You clearly have the understanding on the topic of thievery as an elementary school student has on his classroom presentation of M-theory.
A government cannot stand on force alone. It needs the majority of the people living in the area it claims to believe in its own righteousness or the country becomes impossible to control. The only way to do this is to convince the population that they gain more from paying the mandatory ransoms then they would get by just spending the money directly on what they want to spend it on.
So, they throw just enough spare change at us to stop us from marching violently through the streets or worse, turn to some other government.
"That one likes to cry about taxes and pretend they are some cosmic victim, does not make taxes theft."
Well with that logic I could rob a child of his lolly-pop and claim it's not technically theft so long as the kid cries about it. =/
What makes taxation theft is that it's a mandatory payment punishable by death and/or imprisonment.
It quite literally has nothing to do with whether I view myself as a "cosmic victim" (whatever the hell that is) or not.
Just because I wont shoot you in the kneecap so long as you give me $20 doesn't mean I've given you a well working leg to stand on. ;)
You're comparison makes no sense. You have many things because of taxes, from roads to a military - none of which you could afford on your own, so you are actually getting more than you paid for.
And because our taxes pay for police, people are hardly ever being shot in the knee cap. Without government in fact, you are far more likely to be shot in the kneecap. This analogy doesn't make sense.
Well, no corrections to make here. You clearly have the understanding on the topic of thievery as an elementary school student has on his classroom presentation of M-theory.
A government cannot stand on force alone. It needs the majority of the people living in the area it claims to believe in its own righteousness or the country becomes impossible to control. The only way to do this is to convince the population that they gain more from paying the mandatory ransoms then they would get by just spending the money directly on what they want to spend it on.
Ignoring your insults or attempts at humor or whatever that is, again, you do get more than what you pay for from government. There's like 12 billionaires in the country who could actually afford all of what government offers. Like really? You think you can hire your own personal guard, and pave the roads too and from your home and hire someone to test all your food so you are not poisoned with the money you would save by not paying taxes? I assure you you could not.
So, they throw just enough spare change at us to stop us from marching violently through the streets or worse, turn to some other government.
With all of your gun and protest analogies, I'm guessing you're a crazy extremist tea party type. I hate to break it to you, you are the minority. No one is ready, or even close to ready, to "march violently through the streets."
Once this oil is cleaned from the coast, and at this rate the job situation will be back to normal in a couple of years, even Faux is going to have to find a new camera baby other than these confused old couch potatoes. This rise of government mistrust and hatred you seem to imagine does not exist but in the 10-15% of crazies it has always existed in.
Well with that logic I could rob a child of his lolly-pop and claim it's not technically theft so long as the kid cries about it. =/
... that's not the logic at all. The logic is that a certain group of people just like to cry a lot. No matter what happens, they are a cosmic victim. They consistently fail to see the good government does, instead only focusing on these perceived evils. They never stop to think what would really happen if the government ceased to be funded, they fail to see how easily tyrants and criminals could gain power if we stopped funding government, they fail to see that they themselves have just as much a say in the government as anyone else. They are too busy crying to see it.
What makes taxation theft is that it's a mandatory payment punishable by death and/or imprisonment.
You have a habit of exaggerating to a ridiculous extent in order to back up your unsupported views. No one is ever killed for not paying taxes. And of course one should be imprisoned for not paying taxes, it is not fair that an individual get all the protections of the US, are appointed an attorney by the US against the US when they do go to court, that they get to drive on roads the US paid for, and eat food the US checked first, and not pay their fair share to the US.
It is no different than eating in a restaurant then skipping out on the bill.
"You're comparison makes no sense. You have many things because of taxes, from roads to a military - none of which you could afford on your own, so you are actually getting more than you paid for."
WTF are you talking about? Couldn't afford? Exactly how the hell does a mandatory payment make supplying a demand any cheaper?
It's been proven that just the opposite is true. A company with a majority will jack it's prices up to ridiculous rates because there's no competition to apply pressure for the company to innovate.
And when buying the product is mandatory regardless of price the only limit on the company is when the torches and picket signs come out.
"And because our taxes pay for police, people are hardly ever being shot in the knee cap. Without government in fact, you are far more likely to be shot in the kneecap. This analogy doesn't make sense."
Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't mean it's senseless. Exactly what makes you think you can't have police without a government? Hmm?
"Ignoring your insults or attempts at humor or whatever that is, again, you do get more than what you pay for from government. There's like 12 billionaires in the country who could actually afford all of what government offers. Like really? You think you can hire your own personal guard, and pave the roads too and from your home and hire someone to test all your food so you are not poisoned with the money you would save by not paying taxes? I assure you you could not."
I really don't know how you don't see the problem in what you're saying.
If these things really are unaffordable then how does the government supply them? Clearly there's enough demand for these services that people are willing to give money for them. The only reason why government forced a monopoly on these services in the first place is because there's such a high demand for them.
If there was no government would you still want roads? Of course you would. Just about anyone could start up a company and begin building roads so long as there's a high enough demand that people pay the business owner for it.
"With all of your gun and protest analogies, I'm guessing you're a crazy extremist tea party type. I hate to break it to you, you are the minority. No one is ready, or even close to ready, to "march violently through the streets.""
It's like you have the comprehension level of google translator. you cling to a few key words and sub in the rest arbitrarily. You think I'm going to change my position on government because I'm a minority? I'm no tea party member, but even an idiot can see that protests are happening daily in North America.
Besides that if you actually would bother to process what I wrote you'd realize that I specifically mentioned that government offer just enough to keep the protesters at bay so it makes PERFECT SENSE that there are only a few protests.
"Once this oil is cleaned from the coast, and at this rate the job situation will be back to normal in a couple of years, even Faux is going to have to find a new camera baby other than these confused old couch potatoes. This rise of government mistrust and hatred you seem to imagine does not exist but in the 10-15% of crazies it has always existed in."
Are you dyslexic? WTF are you talking about?
I'm talking about governments using services as a means to justify taxation. XD
"... that's not the logic at all. The logic is that a certain group of people just like to cry a lot. No matter what happens, they are a cosmic victim. They consistently fail to see the good government does, instead only focusing on these perceived evils. They never stop to think what would really happen if the government ceased to be funded, they fail to see how easily tyrants and criminals could gain power if we stopped funding government, they fail to see that they themselves have just as much a say in the government as anyone else. They are too busy crying to see it."
Tell me about the "good" government does XD
"You have a habit of exaggerating to a ridiculous extent in order to back up your unsupported views. No one is ever killed for not paying taxes. And of course one should be imprisoned for not paying taxes, it is not fair that an individual get all the protections of the US, are appointed an attorney by the US against the US when they do go to court, that they get to drive on roads the US paid for, and eat food the US checked first, and not pay their fair share to the US.
It is no different than eating in a restaurant then skipping out on the bill."
Ok. Lets do a simple thought experiment as thinking beyond what your high school civics teacher taught you about the state seems impossible for you.
Let's say you don't pay your taxes, what happens? Well, you get a letter, then another letter, then maybe a few more letters. Then a collector comes and then an officer with a letter outlining a court date for you.
If you STILL refuse to pay they will come and kidnap you and throw you into prison and if you DON'T let them arrest you they will have to kill you.
In the end all the letters and court judgements in all of America mean nothing without the threat of death.
Exactly what do I have to be thankfull for? That a small group of people made a gross overclaim to a large plot of land, most of which is unused, in order to extract goods and money from me in order to supply half assed services at monopoly rates?
Yeah, now that I've said that out loud I feel like a jerk for not being more greatfull. =/
1. No really, I don't remember you. And if I didn't reply it is probably because you are boring and incapable of grasping the simple concept of things, like taxation apparently.
2. It makes it cheaper by the example I gave you, roads, water, etc... that's where the "you couldn't afford it otherwise comes in." These are cheaper because they are not for profit. A business that needs to make a profit is more expensive.
If roads for instance, were a for profit industry, then even with competition, the competition would still want to make a profit, and so it would be more expensive. This is why certain things need to be paid for through taxes in any society.
2. Oh, I get it. You are the one who doesn't understand apparently, since you refuse to say how police would be paid for by individuals.
3. Uh huh, and now I see why I ignored you. How ryu? How would people afford these things? Magical Leprachauns perhaps?
4. No I don't. Why do you insist on comparing wits instead of answering the questions. I am pretty sure IQ wise I'm a lot smarter than you in fact.
5. Yes, yes, I know Ryu, it's all a big conspiracy. Government meets in a dark room and plans it all out. Forget that we vote for our government, you're obviously correct. (that's sarcasm)
6. I was talking about you and your crazy conspiracies and anti-government bs. I'm saying once the economy improves you and your ilk will go back to being ignored by society at large.
7. No one has ever been executed for not paying taxes 1. and 2 this government you vote for supplies the lawyer for free when they do take you to court for not paying your fair share, and 3 because you insist on ad hominem attacks instead of explaining how this stuff would be paid for by the average 40k/ year income - you probably should kind of feel like a jerk.
All you do is repeat "supply and demand, supply and demand" with no consideration for cost or how money would be collected for necessities, like roads, without a tax.
2. Jeez, talking to you about taxation is like asking a near-sited guy to read the credits at the end of a movie.
Like I've already told you, but you can't seem to understand, taxation cannot be cheaper because taxation comes from a coercive monopoly.
Companies with a coercive monopoly can charge much more than a company in a business without a monopoly because they have no competition which means they have no incentive to either lower prices or increase utility.
Take your example of a privatized road business. Company A could charge the people whom use their roads 200% of what they spent building the roads ... until another company (B) comes along and says they will only charge 180%.
Now, the first company can either lower their prices further, have roads so much better than company B's that people would still be willing to use Company A's roads regardless of the price difference, or get run out of business.
But when you only have one company you can continue charging 200% ad infinitum and when you have a COERCIVE monopoly you can charge even more so long as you've convinced the populace that paying you is the right thing to do.
2(?). Well, I'd imagine it would work the same as when you pay for ANY OTHER service. You give a privatized police agency money and they will protect your property.
Was that really so hard?
3. How do people afford anything? It's as though there is this gap in your mind that follows earn money >> taxation >> something government-y >> roads =D
You do recognize that the government is composed of people right? So explain to me exactly how people are able to supply roads and police but "people" can't?
4. Non-sequiter. IGNORED.
5. I'm really not sure what I wrote that warrants this response. I know I ask this often but, wtf are you talking about? I haven't said anything about conspiracies.
6. Again, I've said nothing of conspiracies. I'm offering my universal reasons for why government is unnecessary and you're responding with ad-hoc.
Taxation is theft regardless of the state of economy or if I'm ignored. You're response is like some sort of ad-hoc non-sequiter hybrid. =/
7. Really? Really David? In the whole history of extortion rackets not one person has been killed as a result of not paying the self-porclaimed government?
I don't vote and you don't need a monopoly on lawyers and courts to have lawyers and courts.
These services aren't free, you pay taxes so at the very LEAST you can use the money you otherwise would be using on taxes to pay for these services. Government doesn't magically produce wealth it can only work with what it extorts.
I Keep taling about supply and demand because I'm talking about ecnomics... which is based on supply and demand. Wtf are you complaining about? It's like talking with someone about cars then complaining when they start talking about car engines.
You just don't seem to get it. If people want roads and police then they will pay for these things whether they are mandatory or not. You DON'T need to force people to pay for things that they already want to spend their money on so their's no need for taxation outside of forcing people whom don't want your service to pay for it and for controll over the most vital services in a society.
1. You should be sure, and you're annoying me. This is likely why I began ignoring you last time whenever that was.
2. Why do you continue with the attacks? Insulting me makes you no less incorrect.
And for the rest. You still have not explained how you plan on paying for all this stuff individuals cannot afford without taxes. Toll booths on every block of every road? Perhaps we should go back to trading cows and chickens for medical service? I'm sure doctor's would love that. I want answers how you would pay for things without taxes.
And none of what you have said changes the fact that not a state in the union has judged one be put to death for not paying taxes, or that taxes are theft.
All you've shown is that you don't like taxes, have no idea how else anything would be paid for without them, you like to insult people for no apparent reason, and you think you're some kind of economic super genius.
1. I annoy you? Why? Just because I'll debate you no matter how hopelessly futile getting such a simple message across to you is? What kind of debater would I be if I let a little thing like that deter me =p
Need I remind you, though, that you don't HAVE to debate me and you're free to stop talking to me anytime you like.
2. I tend to respond by sitting down and typing non-stop whatever comes into my mind until I can't think of anything else I need to say. It just so happens I don't think too highly of your grasp on economics. =/
GAAAAAWWWWWW
Try to understand, please, the idea that you don't NEED a tax base to provide any service. If there's money in it, other people will start up a business in order to get some of that money. If people want police protection, someone will start up a business supplying police protection. If people want hospitals, someone will open a practice. Sure, the first person to start up a business of it's kind will have high prices, but then this person sends a waving flag to all other entrepreneurs that there is money to be made in this business.
Then the competition starts. Business begin lowering their prices in order to get more customers than the other businesses until an equilibrium is reached.
You DON'T need government for currency either. There are even forms of currency other than the U.S. dollar in the U.S.A. right now (http://www.libertydollar.org/)
"And none of what you have said changes the fact that not a state in the union has judged one be put to death for not paying taxes, or that taxes are theft."
Hmm, so now the scope has shrunk from all of governments to union states, sure, OK.
I haven't looked into if this has happened to anyone in the united state's history myself, so I'm going to assume you're right. All this proves is that people value their own lives more than their money. It still doesn't change the fact that if you outright refuse to pay, they will have to kill you (or at least imprison you for life) and it defiantly doesn't change the fact that taxation is theft.
You're still having your money extracted forcefully. Sure, you can say you're willingly sending your money but if the only alternative to giving it to them is them taking it then it's not exactly voluntary, is it.
Perhaps these things I'm talking to you about seem "super genius" to you, but ask around and anyone will tell you that basic supply and demand is just that; basic.
So no, I don't like taxes much in the same way I don't like being forced to shoot myself in the foot as opposed to being shot in the foot.
If state run monopolies really are the best way to get things done then you wouldn't need taxation because people would willingly give their money to this super organization as it clearly (sarcasm) does a better job at supplying all these services and making them affordable, than anyone else could.