Do you view taxation as theft?

[Souron]

Who's "we"? I never asked to be part of any "we". Do you not get a choice before joining this club?

As an immigrant, I chose. In your case, your parents effectively chose for you by giving birth to you. You needed the government from day 1. What's the alternative, not make children bound by the law until they are old enough to understand consent, while still allowing them to live on the land?

So if I decide that I no longer which to attribute any authority to the government, it can't touch me? Or are we back to this "we the people" business again?

If you leave the country, and renounce your citizenship, then yes it has no special authority. Now that's not practical, so there should be limits on what the government can do.

Here's an historical example for the tax-refusal-is-theft camp. During the Irish War of Independence, 1919-1921, there were two claimants to government in Ireland: the British government of the Westminster Parliament, and the Irish Republican government of the First Dáil. Both claimed the support of The People, and, in a sense, both were correct: the Westminster government sat on a majority of MPs elected throughout the British Isles, while the Republican government possessed a majority of MPs elected in Ireland. The law is on the side of the Westminster government, there being no provision in the UK for unilaterally declared Republics, but the Republican government enjoys the clear support of the majority of its claimed citizens. To which of these entities does the Irish taxpayer owe his money?

It's not obvious who has more legitimacy in that case. Perhaps the taxpayer can be forgiven for making the wrong call until one authority prevails, and it becomes unambiguous again. Secession is a tricky thing.

 

[Souron]

I thought you claimed that legitimate government was something that people impose upon themselves?

Yes, but if that government kills the people it conquers, then everyone who's left is still acting under a self imposed government.

If a conquered state is integrated into the mother country, and the conquerers accept that, then the government gains legitimacy too. If not, then the government is illegitimate, and you can call taxation theift. The unambiguous example of this would be the tax collected by the Golden Horde in lands they claimed. That was theft, or close to it.

 

[ParkCungHee]

As an immigrant, I chose. In your case, your parents effectively chose for you by giving birth to you. You needed the government from day 1. What's the alternative, not make children bound by the law until they are old enough to understand consent, while still allowing them to live on the land?

My parents never had the authority to do that. My great-great-great-and so on parents already chose to give my loyalty and tribute to the O'Neils.

 

[Souron]

So in the same way, tax evasion is a person not taking money from himself?
And stealing government property is also just a person taking money from himself?

Yes, but it's also not paying dues to the group, and stealing from the group.

Why would it be wrong? Wouldn't it be wrong to challenge their social stability? Isn't that placing costs and burdens on people without their consent? This isn't a reducto ad absurdum hypothetical. The arguments in this thread are very much in line with the arguments made by, for example, supporters of the PRC as to why have freedom of religion and free elections are unacceptable to China and horrendously selfish.
Since we've entered into majoritarian ethics, how can you say this morally wrong?

So you're right, there is a limit to the legitimacy afforded by the government. It can't do anything it wants, and perhaps I was caught up in the argument when I answered the question before this. But it is legitimate enough to levee taxes.

And if this Anthropological theory did not hold out, would that deligitimize the Government's claim to land?

No. In a very real sense, the government owns the land. By not changing the laws and rules of international engagement we legitimize the existing ones.

 

[Souron]

My parents never had the authority to do that. My great-great-great-and so on parents already chose to give my loyalty and tribute to the O'Neils.

There's nothing to give your great-great-whatever authority over you. But your parents are your guardians and caregivers shortly after birth. It is through them you use most of the benefits of society at that stage in life.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Yes, but it's also not paying dues to the group, and stealing from the group.

It's not stealing from the group, it's stealing from yourself. If taxation is a man taking money from himself, why isn't the reverse also true? When does a group enter into it?

So you're right, there is a limit to the legitimacy afforded by the government. It can't do anything it wants, and perhaps I was caught up in the argument when I answered the question before this. But it is legitimate enough to levee taxes.

Why? How are these actions different?

No. In a very real sense, the government owns the land. By not changing the laws and rules of international engagement we legitimize the existing ones.

By what do you mean a "real sense" and what qualifies as changing the laws and rules?

There's nothing to give your great-great-whatever authority over you.

Of course they do. If parents have authority over children, then it regresses infinitely. My parents never had the right to swear me to an American authority, because they themselves were sworn to the O'Neils.

 

[Souron]

It's not stealing from the group, it's stealing from yourself. If taxation is a man taking money from himself, why isn't the reverse also true? When does a group enter into it?

It is true, but there's a group too. The group enters into it because it's a collective decision and authority.

Why? How are these actions different?

The question of mandating belief is somewhat unrealistic. It would be more useful to ask if a state can mandate the practice of religion, such as mandatory prayer. You could also ask if the state could restrict speech about something.

For the former, frankly I'm not sure where the line is.

For the latter, speech is fundamental to the mechanism of democracy, and so should not be infringed. It's also intellectually beneficial to have free speech.

By what do you mean a "real sense" and what qualifies as changing the laws and rules?

Governments treat land as if they owned it, so they own it. Changing the laws and rules would amount to a secession of part of the state or new rules for how parts could seceded. Specifically these would be laws about the secession of land, not necessarily people.

Of course they do. If parents have authority over children, then it regresses infinitely. My parents never had the right to swear me to an American authority, because they themselves were sworn to the O'Neils.

It's would only regress if your parents were children when they gave birth to you. It's not about bloodline, it's about being a caregiver and guardian.

A person raised by wolves would not be bound to the social contract of the nation he happens to be in. But everyone else born in it is.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It is true, but there's a group too. The group enters into it because it's a collective decision and authority.

If it's a group decision, isn't it more accurate to describe it as a group taking money from an individual?

The question of mandating belief is somewhat unrealistic.

So far. I'm sure someone's working on that.

For the latter, speech is fundamental to the mechanism of democracy, and so should not be infringed. It's also intellectually beneficial to have free speech.

Isn't that for the People to decide?

Governments treat land as if they owned it, so they own it.

The Mafia treats the Port Authority like they own it, so they own it then?

It's would only regress if your parents were children when they gave birth to you. It's not about bloodline, it's about being a caregiver and guardian.

Too bad. They were sworn in in perpetuity. If they don't like it, they shouldn't have let their parents swear them in as infants.

 

[Souron]

If it's a group decision, isn't it more accurate to describe it as a group taking money from an individual?

Taking, yes. Stealing, no.

Isn't that for the People to decide?

There's a catch 22. The people can't make an informed decision and therefore can't legitimately decide whether to limit free speech without free speech.

The Mafia treats the Port Authority like they own it, so they own it then?

So you dispute that the government owns the land, and that nations can exchange land between each?

Too bad. They were sworn in in perpetuity. If they don't like it, they shouldn't have let their parents swear them in as infants.

They may have said that, but what gives them the authority to do so? Being a caretaker gives a person ability to give consent for a child because somebody has to. It's a no-brainer choice anyway; a baby needs society.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Taking, yes. Stealing, no.

So what makes an individual requisitioning government property stealing, and not taking.

There's a catch 22. The people can't make an informed decision and therefore can't legitimately decide whether to limit free speech without free speech.

Well then you're caught in your own catch-22. If the people can't make an informed decision without free speech, and free speech is a function of government, no one can make an informed decision to form a government, and all such decisions are illegitimate.

Moreover, who decides when a populace is sufficiently informed that their decisions can be seen as "legitimate?"

So you dispute that the government owns the land, and that nations can exchange land between each?

Yes, I do entirely.

They may have said that, but what gives them the authority to do so? Being a caretaker gives a person ability to give consent for a child because somebody has to. It's a no-brainer choice anyway; a baby needs society.

Being primary care taker, they swore their infant into a lifelong obligation, and to similarly swear in any children they had. Any decision after that point was illegitimate because they had already taken an oath of perpetual loyalty. It's a no-brainer really, a baby needs a place in relation to other septs.

 

[Souron]

So what makes an individual requisitioning government property stealing, and not taking.

The fact that the individual is part of the voting population.

Well then you're caught in your own catch-22. If the people can't make an informed decision without free speech, and free speech is a function of government, no one can make an informed decision to form a government, and all such decisions are illegitimate.

Moreover, who decides when a populace is sufficiently informed that their decisions can be seen as "legitimate?"

An illegitimate government can make a legitimate government out of itself. As for who desides, everybody is entitled to their own opinion, though opinions can be wrong.

Yes, I do entirely.

Government sovereignty is dictated by land claims and by employment (as in all employees of the government are part of the country). The way it exercisers this jurisdiction is consistent with the term ownership. There's not much more to say here.

The one thing I would add, is that it is right to do so. It is more fair than any other inheritance scheme.

Being primary care taker, they swore their infant into a lifelong obligation, and to similarly swear in any children they had. Any decision after that point was illegitimate because they had already taken an oath of perpetual loyalty. It's a no-brainer really, a baby needs a place in relation to other septs.

Why does a baby need a place in relation to other septs? Surely the baby's needs for food and safety trump that?

 

[ParkCungHee]

An illegitimate government can make a legitimate government out of itself. As for who desides, everybody is entitled to their own opinion, though opinions can be wrong.

So it is simply your opinion that governments should allow freedom of speech, and there's no criteria by which we can judge the rightness or wrongness of this?

Why does a baby need a place in relation to other septs? Surely the baby's needs for food and safety trump that?

Possibly. But if we're going with this logic, why does a baby need a government?

 

[Souron]

So it is simply your opinion that governments should allow freedom of speech, and there's no criteria by which we can judge the rightness or wrongness of this?

No, there is a criteria. It's dictated by morality. It's not simple opinion.

Possibly. But if we're going with this logic, why does a baby need a government?

To provide roads, so mom can buy food. To ensure it's home is safe. To ensure the economy is growing. And many many other reasons.

 

[ParkCungHee]

No, there is a criteria. It's dictated by morality. It's not simple opinion.

But this whole argument is based around the idea that morality cannot trump the will of The People, and human beings have no natural right to contradict it o ethical grounds, especially if doing so would have consequences for "the people."

If simple ethics is all that is required to trump the will of the people and delegitimize any government, then no government is legitimate, and all taxation is theft.

To provide roads, so mom can buy food. To ensure it's home is safe. To ensure the economy is growing. And many many other reasons.

Well a Sept can provide all those things for the infant, so I see no reason why your new social contract, which was never legitamately entered into, trumps an older one.

 

[Souron]

But this whole argument is based around the idea that morality cannot trump the will of The People, and human beings have no natural right to contradict it o ethical grounds, especially if doing so would have consequences for "the people."

I never said that. Maybe Cutlass did, but not me. I did say that property was not a natural right though.

If simple ethics is all that is required to trump the will of the people and delegitimize any government, then no government is legitimate, and all taxation is theft.

I don't follow. How can ethics not trump the will of the people when ethic is what dictates what kind of thing is a fair contract in the first place?

Well a Sept can provide all those things for the infant, so I see no reason why your new social contract, which was never legitamately entered into, trumps an older one.

The baby needs the benefits of government, and I fail to see how a long dead sept could provide that.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't follow. How can ethics not trump the will of the people when ethic is what dictates what kind of thing is a fair contract in the first place?

Something, something, Somalia, something.

So what you're saying is, is if a government behaves unethically, we no longer need to support it, and it's obligations and demands are coercive, even if it represents the will of the majority?

The baby needs the benefits of government, and I fail to see how a long dead sept could provide that.

The old way mostly. The question isn't one of practicality though, but one of obligation. My obligation is not to the government, but to my sept, which is sworn in perpetual loyalty to the O'Neils. That's the social contract I'm entered into, and it would seem to trump the social contract you are purporting I am obligated to.

 

[Souron]

Something, something, Somalia, something.

So what you're saying is, is if a government behaves unethically, we no longer need to support it, and it's obligations and demands are coercive, even if it represents the will of the majority.

If a government behaves unethically, then you no longer need to support whatever facilitated the particular unethical act, and no more. So you still gotta pay your taxes, cause that pay for lots of ethical stuff. But the government being unethical does not make it's obligations and demands coercive. The government could be being immoral by being coercive, but that's different.

The old way mostly. The question isn't one of practicality though, but one of obligation. My obligation is not to the government, but to my sept, which is sworn in perpetual loyalty to the O'Neils. That's the social contract I'm entered into, and it would seem to trump the social contract you are purporting I am obligated to.

I concede this point. It's not the mother's consent that makes you part of the social contract.

Still. You need the state as a child, and would accept the social contract if you could.

 

[ParkCungHee]

If a government behaves unethically, then you no longer need to support whatever facilitated the particular unethical act, and no more. So you still gotta pay your taxes, cause that pay for lots of ethical stuff.

But it also pays for unethical stuff. So for example, do I have to support the RHSA, and report people to them, because in addition to hunting Jews and Communists, they hunt "legitimate" criminals?

Similarly, to once again fall back on the Organized Crime example, do I have a moral obligation to continue paying protection to a protection racket, and to not try and destroy the protection racket if a portion of it's proceeds go to ethical causes, such as a children's charity?

Still. You need the state as a child, and would accept the social contract if you could.

What makes you assume that?

 

[Souron]

But it also pays for unethical stuff. So for example, do I have to support the RHSA, and report people to them, because in addition to hunting Jews and Communists, they hunt "legitimate" criminals?

Similarly, to once again fall back on the Organized Crime example, do I have a moral obligation to continue paying protection to a protection racket, and to not try and destroy the protection racket if a portion of it's proceeds go to ethical causes, such as a children's charity?

So if the government is unethical enough, then the moral obligation to pay your taxes may be trumped by your moral obligation not to fund unethical causes.

What makes you assume that?

It needs roads, safety, and the economy, as listed earlier.

 

[ParkCungHee]

So if the government is unethical enough, then the moral obligation to pay your taxes may be trumped by your moral obligation not to fund unethical causes.

Yes, and all Governments are unethical. Therefor we not only have a right, but an obligation to avoid our taxes.

It needs roads, safety, and the economy, as listed earlier.

Yes, but what makes you think the child would compromise it's ethical concerns by entering into the social contract?