holy king
Deity
roma abramovich does not approve.
Do you view taxation as theft?
- Thread starter Eukaryote
- Start date
roma abramovich does not approve.
I can only assume those people have never experienced actual violence, then. There is an enormous difference between a notional threat of violence, and the kind of physical violence that leaves you bloody, broken, and traumatised (or just plain dead).
I'm not at all convinced by that interpretation, not least because Sinn Fein was already a legitimate political party before the troubles began.
It's also worth noting that they never even came close to achieving the aims to which the violence was intended. By the time the official 'war' came to an end, it was pretty hard to see what good any of it had done for the republican cause. Indeed, I'd argue that with a peaceful approach, focused on improving civil rights rather than the fixed line of 'United Ireland or nothing', the crucial reforms of NI politics and society could have been achieved much earlier. Certainly, there were plenty of people on either side who wanted to see those changes, but their voices got lost amongst the horror and rage bound up in all that communal violence.
Sinn Fein itself is undoubtedly more influential than it would have been without its PIRA association, but that influence only came at the expense of the more moderate Catholic/republican parties, and is counterbalanced by the reciprocal popularity of the more extreme kinds of unionist politics.
And, in any case, the important thing is not what happened in the past, but what happens now and in the future. Sinn Fein's present legitimacy does not come from their having supported terrorism in the 70s and 80s, but from their lack of support for it now.
Firstly, as I said earlier in the thread, violence is never a good thing. However, the threat of it is an inescapable fact of human social life. This is one of the main reasons why states are ubiquitous in the world today: their monopoly on violence offers the most plausible method yet imagined for curbing our species' violence tendencies.
Secondly, I am quite willing to recognise that, just as Sinn Fein's legitimacy was undermined by its association with PIRA's terrorism, so the British state's legitimacy was weakened by its own role in the violence of the troubles. States don't get a free pass for violence (quite the opposite, in fact - much of their legitimacy rests on keeping violence to a minimum), and especially not for violence which is so flagrantly illegitimate in nature.
If you look at some of the biggest proponents of the tax is theft reasoning on this site, you will see why I agree with you.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Revisiting this thread, in all seriousness, I can't see any logical framework from which to say taxation is NOT theft. I still think we need some of it, but I don't see how you could possibly argue that taking someone's money for "Society" is not theft.
I mean, the "Not being a freeloader" argument doesn't work becuase it implies that the person consented to having their money charged for said societal service. Maybe that fact makes taxation inescapable, and I tend to agree, but its still theft at the core.
I mean, the "Not being a freeloader" argument doesn't work becuase it implies that the person consented to having their money charged for said societal service. Maybe that fact makes taxation inescapable, and I tend to agree, but its still theft at the core.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Yes, it's a payment for society.. much like $2 is payment for a 2L bottle of soda.
You pay and get something in return. Not theft.
Bit of a silly argument this, really.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Uh, yeah you kind of are. Just by being in the government's borders you are considered to be "Part of the nation" and so have to pay taxes, and rather ridiculous tax rates as well (When you count income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, other taxes, it adds up...)
This "Nation" crap is really getting old. Just accept what you are doing for what you are doing. We're accepting a minimal amount of theft for an absolutely necessary purpose. Or a lot of theft, as the case may be
Uh, yeah you kind of are. Just by being in the government's borders you are considered to be "Part of the nation" and so have to pay taxes, and rather ridiculous tax rates as well (When you count income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, other taxes, it adds up...)
This "Nation" crap is really getting old. Just accept what you are doing for what you are doing. We're accepting a minimal amount of theft for an absolutely necessary purpose. Or a lot of theft, as the case may be
Yeah dude but nobody is forcing you to be part of those borders. Just like nobody is forcing you to be part of a corporation or work at a certain place. The nation is just a bigger corporation, sell your share for as much as you bought it (0) and get out.
(Other political affiliations, read organization, community, religious institution instead of corporations)!
GhostWriter16
Deity
The thing is though, to "Leave" a nation you also have to leave your private property behind. So its still, ultimately, a form of theft.
If you say that the deal you get from society is far, far better than what you give up from taxes, at least to a certain point this holds true. I'd say from a minarchist position this is pretty much true for everybody, while, as you expand the government more and more, some people will inevitably be getting jipped. If I stole a dollar from you and gave you the keys to a brand new Ferrari, I highly doubt you'd complain too much. But its still fundamentally theft. That said, I don't especially care about that theoretical point, in the cases like the ones above when the deal is fundamentally a good one.
I object when the deal becomes a bad one for me, like stealing my ferrari and giving me a dollar.
Like, for instance, when the US intervenes in foreign wars, or gives out foreign aid (I don't personally object as much to the latter due to my personal desire to help people out, but I'd rather that be my choice) I'm not getting anything for the money I'm being forced to spend. So not only is it theft, its not even justifiable because I'm not getting a better deal out of it.
Same with social security as we have it now. I should have a private account, for me, with the money I put in. Instead, I'm not only paying into the social security of two generations before I was born, I'm ALSO paying into whatever other crap programs the government decides to loan themselves money for. And who's telling when they'll pay it back?
Or the drug war? I'm not getting anything for my money there as well.
GhostWriter16
Deity
The difference is that you can't hold a gun to my head and say "Buy this soda, pay $2, and enjoy the benefits." If you were to do so, that you do actually give me the soda doesn't mean you didn't steal the $2 from me.
Voluntary contractual agreeements =/= extortion and theft.
Sir. I am sure that you are allowed to carry your house on your back if you are strong enough! Otherwise there are house-moving companies...sigh. And the land you can sell.
Don't go into the circle again. I just took you out of it, took you out of the box. Try to think about it for a bit.
Second of all you shouldn't be using the word theft in this context at all. Theft is the unlawful seizure of W/E. As you are subject to the laws of the nation you participate in it is obviously not theft. How ever immoral you may consider it to be.
I'll give you an example. In Sweden we have in our nation decided that all land is free for all to walk upon - you can not claim this exclusive right on the land within our borders. Thusly nobody can claim that someone is "stealing" it when using it in a non-harmful manner. Even if you may claim it to be wrong, immoral or unnecessary. Semantics can be fun, they are sometimes enlightening.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I admit I find that Swedish law a bit absurd, but I don't have any background to address it.
I admit you could use "Theft" in a purely legal sense, as you are, and thus taxation would not logically fit under it. That's the same argument used by many people to say "Abortion =/= murder, legally."
The reality is, however, the legal definitions DON'T MATTER. They are frequently treated as if they do, but they really don't. Take the American Revolution. We were traitors, right? Does it even matter at the end of the day?
Taxation is at its core taking what belongs to someone to give it to someone else, or to give something else to the payer, without their permission. That's normally how we define "Theft."
I agree with you that we can't really get rid of taxes, but still. Necessity isn't a moral argument.
I will admit there is a point where the word "Theft" is useless to describe taxation because everyone benefits from each dollar being taken, and moreso than if they had kept the dollar for themselves. Even still, the description is still VALID.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Dude, you really need to educate yourself about this.
Without it, society wouldn't exist, and neither would your computer, your car, the internet, any roads, highways, drug stores, tv stations, doritos.. Heck, you probably wouldn't even be alive.
Nobody's putting a gun to your head telling you to be a part of America. You don't have to if you don't want to.
You have no idea how good you have it and how little taxes you pay...
Really, if you want to leave and absolve your obligations to society, you can. You might have to turn 18 first, but it is entirely doable. Then you can pick whatever social contract you like, out of the 200+ of them in existence!
Which one would you pick?
Is taxation always wrong? No.
Is taxation theft? It can be argued that it is theft.
Bus this leads to the conclusion that theft is not inherently wrong.
I would only agree to describe taxation as theft if I was given another word to describe forms of theft that are wrong, if this word was in common use by the majority of English speakers to describe theft that is wrong, and if the vast majority of people didn't view theft as inherently wrong.
And that last condition is the major reason why I won't describe taxation as theft. Most people view theft as wrong in all situations. While there are many similarities between theft and taxation, most people do not view taxation as wrong in all situations. Since taxation is not always wrong, taxation is not theft.
A person can only describe all taxation as theft if that person views all taxation as being wrong or if that person does not think that describing something as theft is synonymous with describing something as wrong. Since the majority of people do not hold either of these views, such a person - if they were the type to regularly talk about taxation amongst others who don't know them very well - would regularly find themselves in a position where they said something they believed to be quite reasonable but people would react as though they said something unreasonable.
Is taxation theft? It can be argued that it is theft.
Bus this leads to the conclusion that theft is not inherently wrong.
I would only agree to describe taxation as theft if I was given another word to describe forms of theft that are wrong, if this word was in common use by the majority of English speakers to describe theft that is wrong, and if the vast majority of people didn't view theft as inherently wrong.
And that last condition is the major reason why I won't describe taxation as theft. Most people view theft as wrong in all situations. While there are many similarities between theft and taxation, most people do not view taxation as wrong in all situations. Since taxation is not always wrong, taxation is not theft.
A person can only describe all taxation as theft if that person views all taxation as being wrong or if that person does not think that describing something as theft is synonymous with describing something as wrong. Since the majority of people do not hold either of these views, such a person - if they were the type to regularly talk about taxation amongst others who don't know them very well - would regularly find themselves in a position where they said something they believed to be quite reasonable but people would react as though they said something unreasonable.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Yes, I am a pacifist. I don't think we get exemptions for violence just because we have a social structure to do it for us.
If you follow the logic of "if I can do it, it's a right, if I can't do it, it's not a right" through though, the state doesn't deprive people of the right to use violence and coersion. I'm in my house with one other person there. They trust me intimately, and I have a heavy tool on my desk. Anytime I like I could go over and bludgeon their brains out.trader/warrior said:
We have no method of preventing this, only of retroactively applying a punishment to me. By your characterization of rights, don't I have a "right" to kill that person, and they do not have a right to life?
Additionally, if rights are not metaphysical concepts (though I'm certain I've never made an appeal to "Natural Rights" in this thread), what does it matter what rights a state or society does and does not grant you?
Yes, of course! My position is not that the state is some special, particular evil with a unique metaphysical position, but precisely that is is not. That injustice and immorality are unacceptable no matter what form they take.
It is convenient for me to live outside of international waters. I do not see why others have a superior moral claim that I must bear the costs of leaving because I object to their coercion.
Is that not how things already work? As far as I can make out of that wall of text, you are falling back on the argument that "if we did not have a government, the largest armed force would be able to do whatever it wishes." But isn't that a description of the society we already live in?
Aren't states simply the largest gangs we had, who have become exceedingly efficient at what they do?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
So you're fundamentally okay with theft, provided that it can be somehow justified? If so, through what logic are you arriving at these "justifications"? if not, then how can you advocate for any degree of taxation whatsoever?
Are you allowed to refuse the transaction?
GhostWriter16
Deity
I'm not OK with it, but I think the alternatives to at least a minimal amount of it would be worse. I also think certain types of taxation-payed programs (Such as national defense, and by that I mean "Defense" not "Starting foreign wars whenever possible) benefit absolutely everyone without exception, so even if it is theft, EVERYONE is getting more in return.
Most cases of taxation involve taking from some people to give to other people.
I honestly don't have a good answer for you, I hope I can get some credit for admitting it. The heart of my contention is that taxation is fundamentally bad, and so should be limited as much as possible, and that arguments that involve "Giving back to society" or the like fundamentally lack.
Similar threads
- Poll
