So everyone citizen is invested in America as is entitled to the benefits of the social contract? Level of tax payments is irrelevant?
[RD] Taxes are actually not theft
- Thread starter El_Machinae
- Start date
warpus
In pork I trust
So what you're saying your government has been infiltrated by morons.
I could sort of guess that, but didn't want to insult anyone.
I think you are basically what we in Canada call "screwed"
Perfection
The Great Head.
I remain confident that the morons will eventually be identified as such and flushed from the system. You can only fight against reality so far before you lose. The question is how much collateral damage will occur during this period of temporary insanity.
It's also not true. The Republicans were going to run up debt in any case. They were determined to.
Also, no one does not pay property taxes. Except the homeless and those who are dependents of those who do pay property tax. Renters actually pay it at a steeper rate than homeowners.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I don't know if any more than a handful of people really thinks that taxes are theft. What they're mostly trying to communicate is that taxation feels like theft: that they seem a large deduction being made from their income without their specific, item-by-item approval, doesn't feel viscerally different than somebody just reaching into their pay-packet and lifting out a few hundred dollars. It's not a response that stands up to much scrutiny, to be sure, but it doesn't have to, if enough people feel it strongly enough to convince each other that "scrutiny" is another word for Bolshevism.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Randroids
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Well, I did say "think".
warpus
In pork I trust
Then they're doing a pretty bad job of communicating. Most of them actually do seem to think that taxation is theft, though. I don't think I've ever heard anyone voice the opinion that it's not really quite theft, but that's how it makes them feel. It's always "Taxation IS theft", at least going by what I've seen. So I don't know, I guess you could be right that they just all suck at communicating. But I think it makes more sense to go by what they're saying and the points they are arguing
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Come on
The purpose of this thread is to question common standards of what is yours and others.
But it seems never acknowledged what really is the basis of all of such convictions: Nothing but instinct.
There is no code determining our opinions about it other then gene code. However, that gene code also made us extremely flexible and able to adapt.
So a new culture, a new common standard is introduced. But the reasons matter not. Because they are impersonal reasons. Culture is about impersonal reasons. But no one adapts it for impersonal reasons other than because he or she was born into it, making it personal.
So you want a new culture of ownership?`Make a case for how their current situation in their current system would realistically change for the better OR start some sort of (political) cult.
But do not waste out time with what was "right". Because it will not only bore me (and others), it will also not change a thing. Since arguing what is "right" will mostly only sway those with nothing to loose. And in a mass society where most individuals got nothing to decide, many will rejoice in discussing things they will not make happen and hence will not stand to loose anything for. And when nothing is at stake, morals are all that is at stake.
The purpose of this thread is to question common standards of what is yours and others.
But it seems never acknowledged what really is the basis of all of such convictions: Nothing but instinct.
There is no code determining our opinions about it other then gene code. However, that gene code also made us extremely flexible and able to adapt.
So a new culture, a new common standard is introduced. But the reasons matter not. Because they are impersonal reasons. Culture is about impersonal reasons. But no one adapts it for impersonal reasons other than because he or she was born into it, making it personal.
So you want a new culture of ownership?`Make a case for how their current situation in their current system would realistically change for the better OR start some sort of (political) cult.
But do not waste out time with what was "right". Because it will not only bore me (and others), it will also not change a thing. Since arguing what is "right" will mostly only sway those with nothing to loose. And in a mass society where most individuals got nothing to decide, many will rejoice in discussing things they will not make happen and hence will not stand to loose anything for. And when nothing is at stake, morals are all that is at stake.
Lexicus
Deity
In the United States 'taxation is theft' almost literally translates to 'I don't want my money going to black people.'
Okay, that is not true (speaking as an ex-libertarian here). They genuinely believe that taxation never helps anything as well as the market can.
Last edited:
Perfection
The Great Head.
The point isn't really to change societal rules but to defend it against nutbag libertarianism which views taxation as a form of theft. Their flawed ideology presents a serious risk to modern liberal democracy.
Berzerker
Deity
a documentary I saw devoted a segment to how former slaves and their descendants lost their lands because they couldn't pay the property taxes. Their land was stolen legally... the natives could probably tell us about taxes and theft, I'm sure that was one of the ways they lost their lands too.
Its ironic that in our 'capitalist' system we dont actually own anything... not really, not anything that has value for somebody else, like a politician. Just about everything is rented, from the road I drive on to the house I live in. Even the stuff I buy gets a tax to cover the expense of having the privilege of using it.
And maybe thats how it should be... I mean, from a moral perspective. We come into this world and others take care of us until we're old enough to pass it along to the next generation. Life's design... Taxes
Who am I to argue with Mother Nature's morality?
Still, I do not like it when politicians tax me to subsidize the corporations paying for their campaigns. I consider that theft. When people are forced to sell their homes and lands because they cant afford the property taxes, I consider that theft. If my politician taxed away everything you had and shared it with me, that would be theft. So, at some point taxes can become theft - when they're no longer justified.
Its ironic that in our 'capitalist' system we dont actually own anything... not really, not anything that has value for somebody else, like a politician. Just about everything is rented, from the road I drive on to the house I live in. Even the stuff I buy gets a tax to cover the expense of having the privilege of using it.
And maybe thats how it should be... I mean, from a moral perspective. We come into this world and others take care of us until we're old enough to pass it along to the next generation. Life's design... Taxes
Who am I to argue with Mother Nature's morality?Still, I do not like it when politicians tax me to subsidize the corporations paying for their campaigns. I consider that theft. When people are forced to sell their homes and lands because they cant afford the property taxes, I consider that theft. If my politician taxed away everything you had and shared it with me, that would be theft. So, at some point taxes can become theft - when they're no longer justified.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Fair point. Fight fire with fire.
Maybe I will add or comment more. As much for now: Libertarianism in the most extreme forms known in America draws from tribalism and egoism as Fascism does, just in opposite directions (one channeling such instincts on a mass group, the other on individual fighters - but both are fighters).
What instinct does the OP draw from and how does this it relate? How does this relate to competing with Libertarianism?
Such are the questions of actual relevance. Rather than freaking philosophical mind-numbing definitions of theft. Such are the questions for virtual word fighters. Living their instincts in a biotope of their very own.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
It's not so much about making an argument so much as voicing a feeling, and hoping that the feeling resonates with others. The arguments are ropey and unconvincing, but they don't need to be any more robust than is necessary to communicate their feeling of resentment at perceived economic parasitism to potential allies.
People who say offspring can live a live of comfort despite not working. But more than that, they are legitimate. They exist. We accept that they exist. We modify our lives to take advantage of their existence.
My premise is that taxes aren't theft because they're a service fee for an incredible service. If your premise is that taxes aren't theft because not all property ownership is legitimate, then that's another thing. By that logic, though, all reticence to provide sufficient charity within your borders is theft?
Yes, just as previous voters handed down a functional system of government for the capitalist to take advantage of. And then they passed down that wealth.
Yes, they're not customers. Or, at least, they're not the direct customers.
As well, those truly paying very little taxes are also (obviously) not receiving very much benefit from the country they're in.
Entirely not. If you view me through that lens, you will only misunderstand anything I might say. But yes, some voters don't actually try to improve their family's lives in the longrun, despite having inherited an incredible amount of wealth.
Again, the hedonist scion can piss away his dividends. Or he can build upon them.
Fair. I'm talking about a 'western, secular country'.
For practical reasons, no. Ostensibly, you could convert all of your assets into some transportable equivalent, and take a boat out into the ocean. But that's not what you mean. You mean "remain in the country, but not be allowed to ever access the courts or police services, use the roads or public spaces, and not pay taxes", then no, it's not feasible.
Ideally, I'd want to allow people to merely not be able to access the courts, and not pay taxes. But it's just not practical. But there's always the boat option, since forgoing the use of public spaces isn't really practical anyway.
But this sum of services? Wealth protection, property protection, access to customers and employees? It's amazing. And so there's a user fee. And the profits of those fees belong to the owners of that system.
Think of it as a law office. One with a reputable name. They bring in a hotshot attorney. Customers then pay $200 / hour for his services. He gets $100 / hour. Why? He's done all the work!
But no, there's an entire infrastructure that the firm has developed. They own it. Is he their employee? Kinda. But he's also their customer. He uses their firm and pays them a portion of the gross money brought in by merging their name with his effort.
He could have hung his own shingle. He could have paid less than $100 / hour for all the support services he needs, by hiring himself. But would he be claiming $200 / hr from customers? He didn't think so. Not if he decided to work with the firm, instead.
Last edited:
It's not involuntary. You're welcome to not store wealth or earn wealth within the aegis of the country that is charging a service fee for those services. It's as involuntary as the lawyer choosing to join a firm rather than hang his own shingle or work for a firm that takes less of the invoice billed for his services.
Now, a poor person has a much higher cost to leave, yes. But they also pay a lot less for the services they're receiving. TANSTAAFL
Now, a poor person has a much higher cost to leave, yes. But they also pay a lot less for the services they're receiving. TANSTAAFL
Berzerker
Deity
dont people get nailed with taxes if they try to leave the country?
