Jump to content
Dsengere

Taxation is theft- prove me wrong

Recommended Posts

Civilisation comes with a pricetag.

 

Btw, why do you put up with it???

When will you realise, Somolia waits for you (with apologies to Billy Joel).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, so you agree that it's theft!

 

Government is the opposite of civilization. Society would be worlds better without it. But I'm not going to try to convince you of that here.

 

If a woman is being raped in a certain crime-ridden town, what would you advocate for first, her moving or for people to STOP DOING THE WRONG THING? Clearly you know that taxation is morally wrong yet you still espouse the "love it or leave it" argument. Morally bankrupt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, so you agree that it's theft!

 

Government is the opposite of civilization.

Nope.

 

The Renaissance ushered in a new way of doing things, a cooperation between government,

business, and skill. The skill would evolve into science and universities.

 

To make a long story short, the modern world is a package deal. You have to have all of it,

and it don't come free.

 

But...don't put up with it!!! Buy a plane ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is taxation theft or not? If not, why?

How many times do you want to hear no?

 

You reap many benefits, and you pay for them.

 

Or you can go somewhere where they don't have taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you even watch the video? Both of those points were addressed directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your error is thinking that opinions you agree with are therefore facts. Using your logic, you are obligated to accept and grant every last bit of what people who disagree with you write. For example, here's an excerpt from a rebuttal that soundly repudiates the egoistic avarice of the "taxation is theft" nonsense:

An individual for example who earns a paycheck may claim that the government is taking his money by taxing him. However this argument only works if the pre-tax dollars are his. To make this case he must disregard the fact that paying those taxes was a condition of his earning that paycheck in the first place. Being that the condition was set before he ever began to offer his services to his employer, this is factually false. If that employee tries to keep that money then he is keeping that which is not his, because he did not acquire it under the terms and conditions set for him. http://www.debate.org/debates/Taxation-is-not-theft/1/

 

As you can see, reasonable people disagree with you. Accept that, and accept also that your perspective didn't prevail, either in that debate or in society overall.

 

The real failure of the taxation is theft nonsense is its failure to view the world maturely and with integrity, building up its argument on utterly indefensible claims of rights that do not exist. Unilaterally claiming something from a nation or society not explicitly granted by that nation or society, according to the nation's or society's processes for determining such things, is childish.

 

Moving past the silliness that your opinions are the only possible opinions... Let's assume for a minute that your perspective on this didn't fail on the merits in all legitimate debates between reasonable people. Even if that were true, the opposing perspectives on this issue held by different people can be assessed for their moral quality. With regard to all the most generally-accepted principles and standards of societal conduct, egoistic avarice, inherent in the anti-taxation prattle, is considered immoral and condemnable.

 

So the perspective you prefer is not only faulty on the merits, and not only fostered solely by inanely self-serving refusal to acknowledge that reasonable people disagree, but also is morally deficient.

 

Remarkably, the nature of honor and integrity dictates that the fact that you prefer an illegitimate and immoral perspective doesn't make you a bad person. Living in a society and refusing to abide by its standards which you disagree with would make you a bad person. So we can argue about these issues ad infinitum but as long as you grant that your side has lost the argument and comply with the law, that's fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is taxation theft or not? If not, why?

It is the cost of living under an organized government... a "pay to play" sort of idea.

 

Now, much could be said about "theft of services" at many levels within our current system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! You only made one actual argument, and it was a terrible one at that!

 

Required by the idea that you do not have a right to your pre-tax income is the idea that government owns EVERYONE's money, seeing that nobody has the right to do what they want (pay people) with it. If you can't even GIVE someone money for a private transaction on private property, you do not own that money. Clearly this idea is ridiculous and totalitarian. Dollars say "for all debts, public AND private".

 

Also, making your own money is ILLEGAL. If you want to pay someone on private property with private money, government criminals with guns WILL trespass on your property and throw you in jail. So clearly, we are literally FORCED to use government currency anyways (unless you never want to participate in a single private economic transaction using currency).

 

All the rest you wrote contained zero actual arguments, but instead a lot of emotional, "this is how we do it today therefore it's okay", "majority rules so too bad" nonsense. You say that's claims are wrong because they're immature and build open rights that don't exist...again, do you think that's an actual argument? What rights are you talking about?! Tell me how I'm ACTUALLY wrong, don't just tell me that I'm wrong! You're typing a lot but saying very little.

 

Do you even philosophy, bro?

 

Also, where in the world did I say that my opinions are facts because they're my opinions or that my opinions were the only possible views?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that I believe my opinions are facts because there are no other opinions is complete nonsense and out of nowhere. I posted this video to a public forum to get other peoples opinions! Where in the world you get this idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, how is it that anarchy would be your solution for the better life without "costs"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...the free market. Who said there would be no costs? I'm against FORCING people to pay for stuff that they don't want, not forcing people to pay for stuff that they actually want and agree to pay for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this video to a public forum to get other peoples opinions!

 

Including opinions you don't like? Intellectual integrity would require that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you "like" someone's opinion doesn't mean anything. It doesn't change what is right and what is wrong. Philosophy is not about opinion, it's about objective truth. I don't give a fuck about the opinion of a rapist, he is WRONG, period.

 

If someone's "opinion" actually makes sense, I'll "like" it. If their "opinion" is actually just sophistry, non-arguments and general fluff, which yours is, then I probably won't "like" it. Anyways, thanks for proving to me that even the supposed intellectuals have no real argument against the basic fact that taxation is theft.

 

Good day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I thought - you're only interested in opinions that match your own. Figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...the free market. Who said there would be no costs? I'm against FORCING people to pay for stuff that they don't want, not forcing people to pay for stuff that they actually want and agree to pay for!

So, how will this free market with no infrastructure, no government and, I guess, warlords work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I thought - you're only interested in opinions that match your own. Figures.

Prove me wrong! Do it!

 

Oh, you can't? Then stop talking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, how will this free market with no infrastructure, no government and, I guess, warlords work?

We can't have infrastructure without government? If the vast majority of people want these items (surely they do otherwise the vast majority wouldn't vote for it over and over) why then can the free market not provide it? And warlords? Look at your government! They take your money by force to fund wars that kill hundreds of thousands and indebt your children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't have infrastructure without government? If the vast majority of people want these items (surely they do otherwise the vast majority wouldn't vote for it over and over) why then can the free market not provide it? And warlords? Look at your government! They take your money by force to fund wars that kill hundreds of thousands and indebt your children.

Oh, I see much of what the current government structure does and that I, as an individual, do not like... but where, on Earth, do you see anything close to what you envision?

 

How many "free market" individuals, who own roads, bridges and fuel repositories, do you think that truck driver will have to pay to get your favorite munchies to the store of your choice?

 

Of course they "vote for it over and over" and the government responds (rather inefficiently I will add) and gathers (or goes into hock for) the funds necessary to fulfill its perceived obligation.

 

I really must default to labeling what you propose as "anarchy"... the ultimate "smaller government"!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely right my good man or woman. I am an anarchist! Specifically, an anarcho-capitalist.

We can both go back and forth until we are both blue in the face. But I kindly invite you to explore the concept of anarchism.

Here is a good starting video:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously? Operate on some sort of Utopian level of cooperation? Yeh, like that could happen.

 

Well at least you pointed me to some sort of answer on " roads, bridges and fuel repositories"... there will be contracts, and contracts must be honored. But what if they are not, who would be paid to make sure they are honored? What mechanism would lawyers have to enforce contracts?

 

So, at the end of the day, with all your contracts in hand, you head out in your car, that you are under contract for, and drive on those roads and streets, that you have contracts for, to get to the contracted store to buy your favorite munchies at the contracted price. But, alas, you are low on fuel and the cheap version of Fuel finder/GPS that you have contracted for gets you onto a non-contracted road before you realize that the sign that you just passed gives the owner of the road the right to confiscate any vehicle of trespass. Oops, and there it is, the road owner just jam-killed your vehicle's electric system and is taking your car. You are escorted back to a road for which you have contracted egress for and you are on your own. Not a pretty picture.

 

While I get the "free market" aspect of contracting everything, it seem like it could get cumbersome, and expensive, to get only what you want. What in heck would a cross-country road trip look like and how long would you expect to negotiate those contracts? What if the owner of a couple of the stretches of road that you need won't deal with you for an undisclosed reason of their choice?

 

Are you actually willing to dump the net worth that you have accumulated under the current US style capitalism to try what you propose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the thoughtful response and to be honest, you sound exactly like me a few years ago. Those are all legitimate fears. Here is a video I made describing (briefly) why anarchy would not be this chaos that everyone imagines:

 

http://youtu.be/g-n8j9Fydls

 

I urge you to keep the question in your mind: do people want to live in a peaceful and safe society? If not, how could private and/or voluntary organizations help to fill this demand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the thoughtful response and to be honest, you sound exactly like me a few years ago. Those are all legitimate fears. Here is a video I made describing (briefly) why anarchy would not be this chaos that everyone imagines:

 

http://youtu.be/g-n8j9Fydls

 

I urge you to keep the question in your mind: do people want to live in a peaceful and safe society? If not, how could private and/or voluntary organizations help to fill this demand?

Oh, my, another infomercial to sell your point of view!!! Dude, the trucker that's-a-bringin' your munchies might not make it... contract issues!!!

 

For me, the chaos that I see in societies that I perceive as "just approaching" what I perceive as your "end-all-to-end-all" makes your proposal extremely scary.

 

For me a government that "bundles" what the first vid proposes contracts for is, on the surface, costing me less in time and capital in the long run. As a card carrying member of Citizens Against Government Waste, my issues are elsewhere... yet many would label me as a "Lib" in their unique way of banishing me to a place that I would not consider going to on my own... open mind not withstanding!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...