NationStates Jolt Archive

This is what I often hear from uber-free market capitalists.

I agree with them. It is robbery. While I dislike taxes, and I think government should reduce them when it can, they are justified.

I think this because providing free healthcare, shelter and education to citizens who can't afford it privately is, in my opinion, a high moral and practical obligation that justifies taking money from wealthier citizens by coercion.

Letting your citizens off tax-free is not worth letting your nation's poor die on the streets.

Main Entry: rob·bery
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ber·ies
Etymology: Anglo-French robberie roberie, from Old French, from rober to take something away from a person by force
: the unlawful taking away of personal property from a person by violence or by threat of violence that causes fear : larceny from the person or immediate presence of another by violence or threat of violence and with intent to steal

(www.dictionary.com)

Since taxation is by defenition legal, it can't be robbery under this defenition. If you by robbery mean "coercing money from people" then taxation is robbery. The government is the ultimate coercer. That doesn't stop taxation being neccesary for society to function, however.

I really don't think people would mind taxes if they were not used for such asinine things. Like midnight basketball programs.

So, punish the high-achievers to reward the low-achievers. It's the job of Big Momma Government to make sure everyone gets equal outcome from unequal efforts.

Sorry, Homey don't play that. While helping those who truly are destitute due to no fault of their own (disabled, sick, ailing) is a noble and indeed necessary thing to do, the vast majority of those who see the Government as their savior are simply too lazy to make their personal situations better on their own.

Taxation doesn't automatically mean punishing hihg-achievers. Taxation is required for a functioning road network, a functioning rail and air network, for defense, policing and fire-fighting.

Everything else taxation is used for is window-dressing, to a greater or lesser extent. Sure, some of it is good, some even morally neccesary. But on the other hand, a lot is plain stupid.
The only tax system which punishes the "high-achievers" would be a progressive one, which is only one of three possible. Of course, just about all nations today pretend use the progressive system, and many actually do.

Still, "high-achievers" aren't exactly punished in the USA or the UK or France or Germany or Japan. The tax code is complicated for a reason: giving loopholes to the rich so that the common people think the rich are taxed more than they are. Its a great system, keeps both the rich and the masses happy.

Taxation doesn't automatically mean punishing hihg-achievers. Taxation is required for a functioning road network, a functioning rail and air network, for defense, policing and fire-fighting.All of those are perfectly good uses of my tax money. Paying people to go to college, giving people money for having children out of wedlock, paying farmers NOT to produce, those are stupid uses of tax money. And, if you don't think the high-achievers are punished in the tax code, explain why the tax rates get higher at higher levels of income?

Everything else taxation is used for is window-dressing, to a greater or lesser extent. Sure, some of it is good, some even morally neccesary. But on the other hand, a lot is plain stupid.Thanks for acknowledging what I typed above.

The only tax system which punishes the "high-achievers" would be a progressive one, which is only one of three possible. Of course, just about all nations today pretend use the progressive system, and many actually do.

Still, "high-achievers" aren't exactly punished in the USA or the UK or France or Germany or Japan. The tax code is complicated for a reason: giving loopholes to the rich so that the common people think the rich are taxed more than they are. Its a great system, keeps both the rich and the masses happy.The tax code is complicated because politicians from both sides load it with loopholes to favor their friends and supporters. The solution is simple...a flat, single-rate tax or a national sales tax. Maybe after Bush is reelected he can deliver the promise of a complete overhaul of the tax code...we know Monsieur Kerry will not make taxes any easier or lower on anyone.

libertarians believe that the government should be a military, a police force, a justice system, and a minimal political govt. Thats it.

i agree somewhat, but on many things i disagree.

All of those are perfectly good uses of my tax money. Paying people to go to college, giving people money for having children out of wedlock, paying farmers NOT to produce, those are stupid uses of tax money. And, if you don't think the high-achievers are punished in the tax code, explain why the tax rates get higher at higher levels of income? Like I said, its a nominally progressive tax system.

And I disagree, paying people to go to college is one of the best uses for tax money in the world. People can be clever without being the kids of rich people, and there are far more poor people than rich people. Clever people getting educated is a Good Thing(tm) for the economy.
The tax code is complicated because politicians from both sides load it with loopholes to favor their friends and supporters. The solution is simple...a flat, single-rate tax or a national sales tax. Maybe after Bush is reelected he can deliver the promise of a complete overhaul of the tax code...we know Monsieur Kerry will not make taxes any easier or lower on anyone. Given that their friends and supporters are... all the rich people, the rich people aren't paying as much as the "numbers" suggest.

And a flat national sales tax wouldn't be any better, unless it is applied to all transfers of money, not just 'sales'. Since 'poor' people spend the majority of their money on their house, their food and their cars while rich people spend the majority of their money on investments, stocks, and things not covered in VAT provisions they would pay a far far smaller percentage with a 'normal' flat sales tax.

Like I said, its a nominally progressive tax system.

And I disagree, paying people to go to college is one of the best uses for tax money in the world. People can be clever without being the kids of rich people, and there are far more poor people than rich people. Clever people getting educated is a Good Thing(tm) for the economy.Agreed...IF the kids in question are properly prepared for the college experience. Sadly, many are not, thanks to the "Education" they receive through their school years. And, it has been proven again and again that the solution is not to simply put more money into education. The worst schools in the US are in Washington DC, which spends the most per pupil of any state or territory.

Given that their friends and supporters are... all the rich people, the rich people aren't paying as much as the "numbers" suggest.Wrong. Here are the numbers, direct from the IRS (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls). When the top 50% of income earners pay 96% of the tax burden, with the remaining 4% paid by the bottom 50%, you know something is wrong here.

And a flat national sales tax wouldn't be any better, unless it is applied to all transfers of money, not just 'sales'. Since 'poor' people spend the majority of their money on their house, their food and their cars while rich people spend the majority of their money on investments, stocks, and things not covered in VAT provisions they would pay a far far smaller percentage with a 'normal' flat sales tax.The "rich" people you refer to, are the ones who own businesses, and create jobs. The "investments" you refer to, tend to be investments in infrastructure for their businesses, and salaries. If the business owner (or let's call him/her, the "rich person,") invests in the business infrastructure (i.e., buys new computers, more machinery, a larger building,) wouldn't he/she pay taxes on that, under a national sales tax? What exactly is wrong with that?

It's the job of Big Momma Government to make sure everyone gets equal outcome from unequal efforts.....the vast majority of those who see the Government as their savior are simply too lazy to make their personal situations better on their own.
So "the vast majority" of people who collect social welfare are lazy.

Sorry, I don't buy that.

The solution is simple...a flat, single-rate tax or a national sales tax. Maybe after Bush is reelected he can deliver the promise of a complete overhaul of the tax code...we know Monsieur Kerry will not make taxes any easier or lower on anyone.
Please don't mention the "B" and "K" words here. You'll get us all killed, or at least flame-grilled.

Technically, it isn't robbery, but the relationship between the government and people is based on might makes right and is thus immoral.

This is what I often hear from uber-free market capitalists.

I agree with them. It is robbery. While I dislike taxes, and I think government should reduce them when it can, they are justified.

I think this because providing free healthcare, shelter and education to citizens who can't afford it privately is, in my opinion, a high moral and practical obligation that justifies taking money from wealthier citizens by coercion.

Letting your citizens off tax-free is not worth letting your nation's poor die on the streets.

You'll be on your death bed dying of a terminal illness. Sucking off tax payers money. Just like I will and most everyone. Taxes provide you with so much. You're just to blind to see.

Agreed...IF the kids in question are properly prepared for the college experience. Sadly, many are not, thanks to the "Education" they receive through their school years. And, it has been proven again and again that the solution is not to simply put more money into education. The worst schools in the US are in Washington DC, which spends the most per pupil of any state or territory.Having gone through a very good publically funded school system (well, > 80% publically funded anyway) I know that publically funded schools can be very good, even in the USA, if only certain problems are solved first. The main problem is motivating the students and that is the job of the student and the parents and the government far more than the job of the school.

Wrong. Here are the numbers, direct from the IRS (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls). When the top 50% of income earners pay 96% of the tax burden, with the remaining 4% paid by the bottom 50%, you know something is wrong here.I agree. If the top 50% of income earners earn so much that they pay 23 times more tax than the bottom 50% of income earners, then something is wrong.

Oh wait, since the top 50% of income earners earn on average 20 times as much as the bottom 50%, its not so bad.

The "rich" people you refer to, are the ones who own businesses, and create jobs. The "investments" you refer to, tend to be investments in infrastructure for their businesses, and salaries. If the business owner (or let's call him/her, the "rich person,") invests in the business infrastructure (i.e., buys new computers, more machinery, a larger building,) wouldn't he/she pay taxes on that, under a national sales tax? What exactly is wrong with that?I know exactly how the accelerator principle of economics works, and I am all for rich people investing and business owners investing in machinery. I probably know more about the mulitplyer principle of economic growth than you do, too, and I think its a completely logical and even beautifull system.

I am in no way saying that rich people are evil or bad because they have money and spend money. I know how rich people are responsible for creating jobs. I know how they tend to invest, why, and the ripple effect that has on the economy.

The fact remains that a flat rate sales tax has to include those transfers of money in order to be a flat rate tax. And the fact remains that under today's rules, VAT is not paid on buying shares or contracting workers within a company.

Whoever says that taxation is robbery show me one successful state in the history of mankind that did not implement taxes.

This is what I often hear from uber-free market capitalists.

I agree with them. It is robbery. While I dislike taxes, and I think government should reduce them when it can, they are justified.
No, they are not. Taxation is theft, period.

I think this because providing free healthcare, shelter and education to citizens who can't afford it privately is, in my opinion, a high moral and practical obligation that justifies taking money from wealthier citizens by coercion.
And you're welcome to give the poor all the money you want. Don't expect me to do it, and certainly don't have the government force me to. That's offensive.

I agree. If the top 50% of income earners earn so much that they pay 23 times more tax than the bottom 50% of income earners, then something is wrong.

Oh wait, since the top 50% of income earners earn on average 20 times as much as the bottom 50%, its not so bad.
If you take the average of the lowest quintile ($10,136) and multiply it by 20, you get $202,720, which is more than 50k more than the average of the highest quintile ($145,970). Thats just the lowest 20% and the highest 20%, not the lowest 50%, which would have a higher number to multiply by 20, and the highest 50%, which would have a lower number to match it.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=288

Whoever says that taxation is robbery show me one successful state in the history of mankind that did not implement taxes.
You in turn oughta provide a list of nations that have taxed themselves into prosperity.

Main Entry: rob·bery
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ber·ies
Etymology: Anglo-French robberie roberie, from Old French, from rober to take something away from a person by force
: the unlawful taking away of personal property from a person by violence or by threat of violence that causes fear : larceny from the person or immediate presence of another by violence or threat of violence and with intent to steal

(www.dictionary.com)

Since taxation is by defenition legal, it can't be robbery under this defenition. If you by robbery mean "coercing money from people" then taxation is robbery. The government is the ultimate coercer. That doesn't stop taxation being neccesary for society to function, however.
Income Tax by definition is not legal.
It is unconstitutional.
It was a temporary measure illegally extended.
Now Tariffs, Excise Tax, and SAles Tax are are all legal and legit taxes.

No, they are not. Taxation is theft, period.


And you're welcome to give the poor all the money you want. Don't expect me to do it, and certainly don't have the government force me to. That's offensive.

You are beyond ignorant if you don't think you benefit from the money gathered through taxes every day.

No, they are not. Taxation is theft, period.
It doesn't take an economist, and I most certainly am not one, to realize that, taking that stance, the only system you can possibly advocate is anarchy. A government of any sort requires money to exist and do anything. No taxes equals no military, no police, no roads; save only what you might get through private enterprise. Of course, it would all be moot in an anarchic system anyway; without a government to mint currency and hold it to some sort of standard, there would effectively be no money. Individual areas or corporations might mint their own money, but it would likely be worthless elsewhere, thus mandating a return to barter or some other as-yet-unknown-by-me system of moneyless "economics." I, for my part, am actually an anarchist, and the idea doesn't bother me. However, the same people who generally spout such ideas as "taxation is theft" tend to be those who insult anarchists for holding such ideals, so I doubt you'll feel the same way.

In short, to recognize the government you live under as at all legitimate is to admit that it carries a purpose, and must be supported. As the only way to do so is through taxes, "taxation is theft" becomes a contradictory statement.

This is what I often hear from uber-free market capitalists.

I agree with them. It is robbery. While I dislike taxes, and I think government should reduce them when it can, they are justified.

I think this because providing free healthcare, shelter and education to citizens who can't afford it privately is, in my opinion, a high moral and practical obligation that justifies taking money from wealthier citizens by coercion.

Letting your citizens off tax-free is not worth letting your nation's poor die on the streets.

Actually, I don't agree. The implicit intent in any robber is to use other people as a means to his own ends: he steals so that he can better his own condition. On the other hand, when government "steals" from it's citizens by taxation, it then uses the money to pay for services that benefit said citizens. As such, unless thieves start the practice of taking your wallet and then using the contents to buy vaccinations for your children and health care for your parents, I'd have to say that theft is absolutely the wrong term to use in the context of taxation.

Of course, one of the problems with uber-free market capitalists is that they tend to define theft as the unwarranted taking of goods you have produced for the benefit of others. The reason why this is a problem is because with respect to capitalism, the unwarranted taking of goods you have produced for the benefit of others is widely practiced. It's just couched in the term "profit."

You are beyond ignorant if you don't think you benefit from the money gathered through taxes every day.
You're beyond ignorant if you think that said money was taken from me without initiating force, and thus is immoral.

The supposed ends DO FUCKING NOT justify the means.

It doesn't take an economist, and I most certainly am not one, to realize that, taking that stance, the only system you can possibly advocate is anarchy.
I am an anarchocapitalist.

A government of any sort requires money to exist and do anything. No taxes equals no military,
Non sequitur.

no police,
Non sequitur.

no roads;
Non sequitur.

save only what you might get through private enterprise.
...which would be more than now.

Of course, it would all be moot in an anarchic system anyway; without a government to mint currency
Why wouldn't there be currency without a government? What is the link that makes currency beholden to a government. You claimed it--you prove it. Now.

and hold it to some sort of standard, there would effectively be no money.
Non sequitur.

Individual areas or corporations might mint their own money, but it would likely be worthless elsewhere,
Non sequitur.

thus mandating a return to barter or some other as-yet-unknown-by-me system of moneyless "economics."
You really should read Murray Rothbard.

In short, to recognize the government you live under as at all legitimate is to admit that it carries a purpose, and must be supported. As the only way to do so is through taxes, "taxation is theft" becomes a contradictory statement.
No, it doesn't. Non sequitur.

Got anything besides conclusions that don't follow?

You're beyond ignorant if you think that said money was taken from me without initiating force, and thus is immoral.

The supposed ends DO FUCKING NOT justify the means.

That's utterly absurd. If you do not like the way our society works, you are free to leave it, go to some remote wilderness where the government does not reach, and live your life exactly the way you want to. But otherwise, shut the hell up and deal with it. You take advantage of taxpayer's dollars every day of your life.

BAAWA:
It's easy to call "non sequitur" if you don't bother to look at the logic behind someone's statements.

Anarcho-capitalism: though I don't completely agree with this school of thought, it's good to see you aren't contradicting your own views. That, I can respect.

Military, police, roads: only a non-sequitur if taken out of the context of the whole statement. That includes the last bit about "except what you might get through private enterprise." Those three are government functions. Period. Cut off all of the government's funding, and the government will no longer perform those functions. Ergo, unless a private enterprise decides to step up to the plate and replace government in that regard, the functions simply will not be performed. Considering that this nation is still the world's foremost military superpower, police patrol every city (with the possible exception of tiny 10-person "cities" that are listed on maps), and there are a vast number of roads, the majority of which are just fine in terms of maintenance, your "more than now" statement simply does not make sense.

Currency: the government holds the gold with which currency is (supposed to be) backed. The government is a recognized body in the world, and as such it's currency is also recognized as legitimate. A government is the only body capable of standardizing currency across more than an extremely local area--one might claim that a corporation could do the same, but I would argue that in doing so, it would be setting itself up as rudimentary government, as it would have to have some means of enforcing that standardization. In an anarchic system, any Joe with the right equipment can create currency, and it is just as acceptable as anyone else's. Currency falls flat as a system if the one creating and standardizing it does not have some sort of authority both to standardize it, and to back it. They are, after all, nothing more than essentially worthless pieces of paper/cotton (or, in this day and age, numbers on a screen).

That takes care of all your "non sequitur" calls except the last one. Considering you are an anarchist as well, you really needn't respond to the "in short" bit; if you're an anarchist, you don't recognize the government as a legitimate body anyway, right? Which was, if you'll look, the base premise of the statement. You need to read more carefully.

As to Murray Rothbard, perhaps I will, perhaps not. I've a lot on my plate as it is with material I need to read.


Sdaeriji:
If you meant that in a "love it or leave it" sense, I must disagree. Such a stance is quite immature. A more mature approach would be to stick around, and attempt to change things, which I suspect he is already doing.

Sdaeriji:
If you meant that in a "love it or leave it" sense, I must disagree. Such a stance is quite immature. A more mature approach would be to stick around, and attempt to change things, which I suspect he is already doing.

No, to complain about his tax dollars going to other people being unjust, while other people's tax dollars undoubtedly go towards his benefit, is highly hypocritical. He is deeply offended when his tax dollars go towards people on welfare, but he has no problem driving on taxpayer-funded roads or going to public schools or calling the police when something unfortunate happens. It is much more likely he does nothing to change the system, but instead bitches and moans about how he's being unjustly taxed because he's greedy. It is a simple fact that civilization could not function without some sort of taxation to pay to provide services for the common good.

I aplologize, then. I've been debating with too many "love it or leave it" types of late, so I'm overquick to call people on it.

For my part, I don't complain. With the current system, taxes are indeed essential. I won't deny that. As an anarchist, I desire the eventual removal of this system. However, I'm also not delusional enough to believe that such will happen anytime soon; the world at large could not go anarchist without being ready first. Successful anarchy cannot be bred of chaos of they type that simply destroying the current system without regard would create. As such, this system must be allowed to run, while preparing people; spreading the self-sufficiency meme, debating the merits of an anarchic system, and bringing people to the mindset that would encourage the eventual peaceful dismantling of things in favor of anarchy.

That's my theory, anyway.

I aplologize, then. I've been debating with too many "love it or leave it" types of late, so I'm overquick to call people on it.

For my part, I don't complain. With the current system, taxes are indeed essential. I won't deny that. As an anarchist, I desire the eventual removal of this system. However, I'm also not delusional enough to believe that such will happen anytime soon; the world at large could not go anarchist without being ready first. Successful anarchy cannot be bred of chaos of they type that simply destroying the current system without regard would create. As such, this system must be allowed to run, while preparing people; spreading the self-sufficiency meme, debating the merits of an anarchic system, and bringing people to the mindset that would encourage the eventual peaceful dismantling of things in favor of anarchy.

That's my theory, anyway.

Well, here's a question for you. How would basic public services, such as road maintenance, or garbage removal, or the police, work in an anarchist system?

Well, here's a question for you. How would basic public services, such as road maintenance, or garbage removal, or the police, work in an anarchist system?
On a grand scale, such as the US? They wouldn't. Even leaving aside the fact that they are indeed nations, massive nation size is a concept that anarchism removes. Such services would be organized on a community basis to fit the needs of whatever community they were serving; those who wished to benefit the community would do whatever tasks they felt capable of and/or inclined to do, in order to do so.

It takes a great faith in human nature, which is part of the reason I don't think it can happen in the near future. I have met many people that would be among those community-minded folk (myself as one), but I doubt people are at this point willing to leave things in such a free-form state.

And as a disclaimer, again, this is only my theory. There are a myriad of anarchic theories out there.

You're beyond ignorant if you think that said money was taken from me without initiating force, and thus is immoral.

The supposed ends DO FUCKING NOT justify the means.

That's utterly absurd.
Prove that the ends justify the means.

If you do not like the way our society works, you are free to leave it, go to some remote wilderness where the government does not reach, and live your life exactly the way you want to. But otherwise, shut the hell up and deal with it.
Ah yes, the immature "love it or leave it" mentality. Grow the fuck up, will you?

Ah yes, the immature "love it or leave it" mentality. Grow the fuck up, will you?

This was already addressed. I understand if you missed it in your zeal to swear at me.


No, to complain about his tax dollars going to other people being unjust, while other people's tax dollars undoubtedly go towards his benefit, is highly hypocritical. He is deeply offended when his tax dollars go towards people on welfare, but he has no problem driving on taxpayer-funded roads or going to public schools or calling the police when something unfortunate happens. It is much more likely he does nothing to change the system, but instead bitches and moans about how he's being unjustly taxed because he's greedy. It is a simple fact that civilization could not function without some sort of taxation to pay to provide services for the common good.

Prove that the ends justify the means.

I don't have to. As long as you use any service that is funded by taxpayer money, taxpayers other than yourself, you remain a hypocrite. To argue that you should not have your tax dollars going to someone else's benefit while you continue to benefit from others' tax dollars is what I was calling utterly absurd.

BAAWA:
It's easy to call "non sequitur" if you don't bother to look at the logic behind someone's statements.
I did. That's why I called them non sequiturs.

Anarcho-capitalism: though I don't completely agree with this school of thought, it's good to see you aren't contradicting your own views. That, I can respect.

Military, police, roads: only a non-sequitur if taken out of the context of the whole statement.
No.

That includes the last bit about "except what you might get through private enterprise." Those three are government functions. Period.
Prove it. Now. Prove that ONLY a government can provide a military, police, and roads.

THAT is why it's a non sequitur, bub: your conclusion cannot follow.

Cut off all of the government's funding, and the government will no longer perform those functions. Ergo, unless a private enterprise decides to step up to the plate and replace government in that regard, the functions simply will not be performed.
You contradicted yourself. You said that "Those three are government functions. Period." Meaning: ONLY GOVERNMENT CAN PROVIDE THEM.

So how can a private company do it if only a government can?

Considering that this nation is still the world's foremost military superpower, police patrol every city (with the possible exception of tiny 10-person "cities" that are listed on maps), and there are a vast number of roads, the majority of which are just fine in terms of maintenance, your "more than now" statement simply does not make sense.
Certainly it does. Just because there a police that patrol every city doesn't mean that 1. There are enough and 2. That they actually do something.

As for the roads, I'd advise you to drive through Chicago.

Currency: the government holds the gold with which currency is (supposed to be) backed.
The US went completely off the gold-standard in the 1970s! The gold in Fort Knox and elsewhere is just for show. The money in the US is fiat currency, backed ONLY by the "full faith and credit" of the United States.

The government is a recognized body in the world, and as such it's currency is also recognized as legitimate. A government is the only body capable of standardizing currency across more than an extremely local area
Prove it.

--one might claim that a corporation could do the same, but I would argue that in doing so, it would be setting itself up as rudimentary government,
Prove it.

as it would have to have some means of enforcing that standardization.
Other than honor?

In an anarchic system, any Joe with the right equipment can create currency, and it is just as acceptable as anyone else's.
And?

Currency falls flat as a system if the one creating and standardizing it does not have some sort of authority both to standardize it, and to back it.
Wrong.

They are, after all, nothing more than essentially worthless pieces of paper/cotton (or, in this day and age, numbers on a screen).
And what about specie?

That takes care of all your "non sequitur" calls except the last one.
No, they still are.

Considering you are an anarchist as well, you really needn't respond to the "in short" bit; if you're an anarchist, you don't recognize the government as a legitimate body anyway, right? Which was, if you'll look, the base premise of the statement. You need to read more carefully.
I read it. What's your point?

As to Murray Rothbard, perhaps I will, perhaps not. I've a lot on my plate as it is with material I need to read.
Right.

Prove that the ends justify the means.
I don't have to.
Yes, you do.

As long as you use any service that is funded by taxpayer money, taxpayers other than yourself, you remain a hypocrite.
Prove it.

You might want to fucking think before you post. I can't use any court system other than the one provided by the state, for instance, because the state has arrogated to itself that monopoly! Stupid fuck--think before you post!

Prove it. Now. Prove that ONLY a government can provide a military, police, and roads

I'm sorry. I'm missing something here.

No Organization in the world, Including Microsoft or The Church (Or Mcdonalds, etc. All those rich Corporations) could pay the amount of money yearly required for the upkeep of an Army the size of the USA's.

Ah yes, the immature "love it or leave it" mentality. Grow the fuck up, will you?
This was already addressed. I understand if you missed it in your zeal to swear at me.
What the fuck is do you mean by "zeal to swear"?


No, to complain about his tax dollars going to other people being unjust, while other people's tax dollars undoubtedly go towards his benefit, is highly hypocritical.
That, of course, is bullshit.

He is deeply offended when his tax dollars go towards people on welfare, but he has no problem driving on taxpayer-funded roads
What other roads are there, you stupid fuck?

going to public schools
I had to because the government makes private schools so expensive.

or calling the police when something unfortunate happens.
Because there are no other options, you stupid fuck.

Think before you fucking post.

Prove it. Now. Prove that ONLY a government can provide a military, police, and roads

I'm sorry. I'm missing something here.

No Organization in the world, Including Microsoft or The Church (Or Mcdonalds, etc. All those rich Corporations) could pay the amount of money yearly required for the upkeep of an Army the size of the USA's.
Why would something that size be needed in the absence of a government which does all sorts of rather nasty things which causes the need for such a sizeable military?

Yes, you do.


Prove it.

You might want to fucking think before you post. I can't use any court system other than the one provided by the state, for instance, because the state has arrogated to itself that monopoly! Stupid fuck--think before you post!

That doesn't matter. The simple fact that you use it makes you hypocritical. Until you no longer rely on a SINGLE taxpayer dollar other than your own, then you have no right to proclaim that it is unfair that your tax dollars go to others. I assume you drive a car on roads, or walk on sidewalks, or have your garbage removed, or listen to the radio or watch TV, or use the Internet, or do a million other things that are funded by tax dollars. If I am wrong, if you live in some remote location and constructed your own Internet connection, please tell me.

And if you continue to flame me just because you disagree with me, I'll report you. Just a fair warning.

Yes, you do.


Prove it.

You might want to fucking think before you post. I can't use any court system other than the one provided by the state, for instance, because the state has arrogated to itself that monopoly! Stupid fuck--think before you post!

YOu're not really Proving anything either BAAWA.

First. The ends of course justify the means, but it depends on which ends are achieved, and which methods are used.

In this case, taxation is of course the easiest way to do this. First, you're living on land owned by the United States of America (Presumed). If you don't want to pay their taxes, THEN MOVE TO THE FUCKING MOON.

Thank you.

What other roads are there, you stupid fuck?


I had to because the government makes private schools so expensive.


Because there are no other options, you stupid fuck.


That.

Doesn't.

Matter.

You COULD go live in a remote hilltop cabin that you constructed yourself and eat food you grow yourself and use no single service that is paid for with tax dollars. It is an option. You have decided that that is too inconvienent, so instead you sit around and bitch about how unfair it is that you are taxed while you continue to enjoy taxpayer-funded services.

UNTIL you are no longer dependent on a single tax-funded service, you are still using other people's tax dollars for your own benefit, and you are not justified in complaining about your taxes going towards others' benefit.

Prove it. Now. Prove that ONLY a government can provide a military, police, and roads.

THAT is why it's a non sequitur, bub: your conclusion cannot follow.

You contradicted yourself. You said that "Those three are government functions. Period." Meaning: ONLY GOVERNMENT CAN PROVIDE THEM.

So how can a private company do it if only a government can?
If you look to what I read with an eye for what I might mean by it, rather than an eye for how you can attack it, you will see that I never said that they can only be government functions. As in, they are functions currently performed by the government. You cannot deny that that is the truth, and it is all that I meant. You have misread my statement, plain and simple.


Certainly it does. Just because there a police that patrol every city doesn't mean that 1. There are enough and 2. That they actually do something.

As for the roads, I'd advise you to drive through Chicago.
First off, I would challenge the assertation that the police don't do anything. Second, if you are asserting that an anarchic system would ensure good roads across an area the size of the United States to a greater degree than is currently done by the government, I simply disagree. One area of poor maintenance does not equal incompetence.


The US went completely off the gold-standard in the 1970s! The gold in Fort Knox and elsewhere is just for show. The money in the US is fiat currency, backed ONLY by the "full faith and credit" of the United States.
Fun how you just proved my point. The "full faith and credit" of the United States is worth far more, even in this day and age wherein a good amount of the world hates the US, than the "full faith and credit" of non-governmental groups. Certainly corporations tend to be regarded as untrustworthy, and they would be to a greater extent without any sort of regulation put upon them. Currency backed by "faith and credit" is worthless without the support systems needed to generate that faith and credit in the first place.

I read it. What's your point?
My point is, as I am becoming increasingly aware, you are only debating for the purpose of telling people they are wrong. You don't realize that you were responding to a point which did not pertain to you? I think I am finished debating with you; single-word responces, flat statements like "you're wrong" with nothing to back them up, do nothing for me. At least, in this debate, I am explaining a theory as I go; you are doing nothing but contradicting others.

Dont want to pay taxes?
I suggest you live in a country where you dont have to pay any taxes.
The world has lots:
Somalia
Haiti
Sudan
Chechnya
Iraq
Congo


They will be glad to have you~

You might want to fucking think before you post. I can't use any court system other than the one provided by the state, for instance, because the state has arrogated to itself that monopoly! Stupid fuck--think before you post!
That doesn't matter.
It most certainly fucking does.

The simple fact that you use it makes you hypocritical.
Fucking prove it! Don't just fucking restate your fucking assertion. Prove it!

Until you no longer rely on a SINGLE taxpayer dollar other than your own, then you have no right to proclaim that it is unfair that your tax dollars go to others.
I most certainly fucking do.

And if you continue to flame me just because you disagree with me, I'll report you. Just a fair warning.
Fuck off. I haven't flamed you at all. And none of this is "just because I disagree with you". It's because you don't fucking bother to think before you post.

YOu're not really Proving anything either BAAWA.
I wasn't trying to.

First. The ends of course justify the means, but it depends on which ends are achieved, and which methods are used.
Then the ends don't justify the means. Thank you.

In this case, taxation is of course the easiest way to do this. First, you're living on land owned by the United States of America (Presumed).
That's a HUGE presumption. Where did the US Government get this right to own the land?

If you don't want to pay their taxes, THEN MOVE TO THE FUCKING MOON.
No.

What other roads are there, you stupid fuck?


I had to because the government makes private schools so expensive.


Because there are no other options, you stupid fuck.
That.

Doesn't.

Matter.
Yes.

It.

Fucking.

Does.

Matter.

You COULD go live in a remote hilltop cabin that you constructed yourself and eat food you grow yourself and use no single service that is paid for with tax dollars.
So what?

It is an option. You have decided that that is too inconvienent, so instead you sit around and bitch about how unfair it is that you are taxed while you continue to enjoy taxpayer-funded services.
So what?

UNTIL you are no longer dependent on a single tax-funded service, you are still using other people's tax dollars for your own benefit, and you are not justified in complaining about your taxes going towards others' benefit.
Yes I most certainly the fuck am, you stupid fuck. Think about this before you fucking post next time: if there are no fucking alternatives, then I am FORCED to use the options given to me by the government. GRASP THAT, YOU FUCKING MORON.

Prove it. Now. Prove that ONLY a government can provide a military, police, and roads.

THAT is why it's a non sequitur, bub: your conclusion cannot follow.

You contradicted yourself. You said that "Those three are government functions. Period." Meaning: ONLY GOVERNMENT CAN PROVIDE THEM.

So how can a private company do it if only a government can?
If you look to what I read with an eye for what I might mean by it, rather than an eye for how you can attack it, you will see that I never said that they can only be government functions.
Yes, you did. I quoted your words.

As in, they are functions currently performed by the government. You cannot deny that that is the truth, and it is all that I meant. You have misread my statement, plain and simple.
No, I didn't misread them. You didn't write what you meant.

Next time: be clear. Don't leave any ambiguity.


Certainly it does. Just because there a police that patrol every city doesn't mean that 1. There are enough and 2. That they actually do something.

As for the roads, I'd advise you to drive through Chicago.

First off, I would challenge the assertation that the police don't do anything.
Some of them don't do anything.

Second, if you are asserting that an anarchic system would ensure good roads across an area the size of the United States to a greater degree than is currently done by the government, I simply disagree. One area of poor maintenance does not mean incompetance
Feel free to disagree all you like. It won't make you correct, of course, but feel free to do so anyway.


The US went completely off the gold-standard in the 1970s! The gold in Fort Knox and elsewhere is just for show. The money in the US is fiat currency, backed ONLY by the "full faith and credit" of the United States.
Fun how you just proved my point.
I didn't, actually.

The "full faith and credit" of the United States is worth far more, even in this day and age wherein a good amount of the world hates the US, than the "full faith and credit" of non-governmental groups.
No, it's not.

Certainly corporations tend to be regarded as untrustworthy,
....because of sick assholes who hate anyone who is successful.

and they would be to a greater extent without any sort of regulation put upon them.
...like you.

Currency backed by "faith and credit" is worthless without the support systems needed to generate that faith and credit in the first place.
The current system is riding on the remnant memory of what the old system was.


I read it. What's your point?
My point is, as I am becoming increasingly aware, you are only debating for the purpose of telling people they are wrong.
Eh, you're wrong.

You don't realize that you were responding to a point which did not pertain to you?
You don't realize that I don't care.

I think I am finished debating with you; single-word responces, flat statements like "you're wrong" with nothing to back them up, do nothing for me.
Hey--give me some fucking meat to chew on and I'll give you more than 1-word answers.

At least, in this debate, I am explaining a theory as I go;
Bullshit.

you are doing nothing but contradicting others.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure. I give you the reasoning behind things, and you say that I'm not. Fucking liar.

Fucking prove it! Don't just fucking restate your fucking assertion. Prove it!


I'm not even sure what you're asking me to prove anymore. Are you asking me to prove that you are a hypocrite? If you use a service that is funded by tax money other than your own, then it is hypocritical of you to complain about your tax dollars going to other people, since you use other people's tax dollars and don't mind.

basic gist: love it or leave it
Immature.

Income Tax by definition is not legal.
It is unconstitutional.
It was a temporary measure illegally extended.
Now Tariffs, Excise Tax, and SAles Tax are are all legal and legit taxes.
Allow me to refer you to Amendment 16 of the US Constittion. Since the Constitution defines what is and isn't "legal" in this country, I'm afraid it actually IS constitutional and legal.

BAAWA, you're being issued a stiff warning for flaming. Anymore of this and you will find yourself forumbanned.


Ah yes, the immature "love it or leave it" mentality. Grow the fuck up, will you?
Stupid fuck--think before you post!
What other roads are there, you stupid fuck?
...
Because there are no other options, you stupid fuck.

Think before you fucking post.
Fuck off. I haven't flamed you at all. And none of this is "just because I disagree with you". It's because you don't fucking bother to think before you post.
Yes I most certainly the fuck am, you stupid fuck. Think about this before you fucking post next time: if there are no fucking alternatives, then I am FORCED to use the options given to me by the government. GRASP THAT, YOU FUCKING MORON.
All blatant flaming. Knock it off this instant.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

Income Tax by definition is not legal.
It is unconstitutional.
It was a temporary measure illegally extended.
Now Tariffs, Excise Tax, and SAles Tax are are all legal and legit taxes.
Not to mention, the 16th Amendment was never ratified.

Allow me to refer you to Amendment 16 of the US Constittion. Since the Constitution defines what is and isn't "legal" in this country, I'm afraid it actually IS constitutional and legal.
You do mean the same 16th Amendment that was never ratified, right?

Not to mention, the 16th Amendment was never ratified.

Accorting to an archive I just visited, it was ratified Feb 3rd, 1913.

You do mean the same 16th Amendment that was never ratified, right?
Whether the ratification process was questionable or not, it's part of our Constitution - for better or worse - and thus legal. Try arguing with the IRS through the legal system if you think you have a case.

Accorting to an archive I just visited, it was ratified Feb 3rd, 1913.
Really...how about you provide a list of the states that ratified it? Remember, in 1913 there were 48 states, which would require 32 states to ratify it if it's 2/3 of the states, or 36 if it's 3/4 of the states (I always forget how many it takes.)

Really...how about you provide a list of the states that ratified it? Remember, in 1913 there were 48 states, which would require 32 states to ratify it if it's 2/3 of the states, or 36 if it's 3/4 of the states (I always forget how many it takes.)

An amendment takes 3/4 of the states I do believe. Two thirds of the two houses of Congress and three fourths of the states I think.

Whether the ratification process was questionable or not, it's part of our Constitution - for better or worse - and thus legal. Try arguing with the IRS through the legal system if you think you have a case.
I am not disagreeing about that. Whether or not the income tax is Constitutional is, by now, besides the point. The legality of the income tax is also irrelevant at this point, given that Uncle Sam has gotten so used to getting into our pocketbooks at gunpoint for so long.

We know the system is broken, let's fix it and make it truly fair to all. The only way to ensure that is to make everyone pay the same proportions, coupled with truly revolutionary thinking about government spending, such as: "what exactly does the Constitution list as the purpose of the government?", then cutting out anything that doesn't measure up.

Really...how about you provide a list of the states that ratified it? Remember, in 1913 there were 48 states, which would require 32 states to ratify it if it's 2/3 of the states, or 36 if it's 3/4 of the states (I always forget how many it takes.)

In my googling, I came across this. It's pretty interesting stuff and an excellent view into the gooey mess of legislative and judicial politics:

http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/othertax/16thamend.html

Here's another interesting tidbit about the ratification. Though if that first site is correct, it's moot anyway:

http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/19990709_xcdfr_is_income.htm

Hmm, those are some great links. I'd never looked at this in-depth before, thanks.

I found several other interesting articles dealing with the legality and illegality of the Income Tax and the Sixteenth AMendment. I think it's safe to say that it's a highly controversial topic even after 90 years. Hehehe.

the libertarian 2000 candidate was
his add of him blowing up the IRS building
to make his point, that was a heck of a
way to make his point.
Heck.

BAAWA, you're being issued a stiff warning for flaming. Anymore of this and you will find yourself forumbanned.
Please show how it was flaming. And I'm not asking in some smart-ass way. I'd like to really know how it was flaming.

If you want to ban me for asking--fine. Your prerogative. But I'm asking honestly. Please show me.

I'm not even sure what you're asking me to prove anymore. Are you asking me to prove that you are a hypocrite?
Yes.

If you use a service that is funded by tax money other than your own, then it is hypocritical of you to complain about your tax dollars going to other people, since you use other people's tax dollars and don't mind.
That.

Is.

Restating.

Your.

Assertion!

Learn the difference between providing evidence and just restating your claim! Pf by blatant assertion doesn't work.

Allow me to refer you to Amendment 16 of the US Constittion. Since the Constitution defines what is and isn't "legal" in this country, I'm afraid it actually IS constitutional and legal.
No, actually the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. Nor does the US Code dealing with the 16th amendment define income as what is gained domestically.

Helps to know the LAW.

Just a hint.

Learn the difference between providing evidence and just restating your claim! Pf by blatant assertion doesn't work.

I can't prove that you use tax dollar-funded services. I don't know you. For all I know you do live in Montana on your farm. Since you've been so completely inable to say anything other than the word 'fuck', I can't really have an debate with you. You aren't actually arguing any points. If you'd actually ANSWER MY QUESTION, then I could get around to proving you are a hypocrite. But as long as your debate consists of such jewels as "So what?", "You stupid fuck", "No", "Bullshit", and "You're wrong", I can't do anything but restate my claim. I can't have an argument with a wall.

Please show how it was flaming. And I'm not asking in some smart-ass way. I'd like to really know how it was flaming.

If you want to ban me for asking--fine. Your prerogative. But I'm asking honestly. Please show me.

Allow me.

Yes I most certainly the fuck am, you stupid fuck. Think about this before you fucking post next time: if there are no fucking alternatives, then I am FORCED to use the options given to me by the government. GRASP THAT, YOU FUCKING MORON.

Emphasis added.

Those are just a couple of your gems. Would you like to see some more?

Sdaeriji is correct. You may not use such obsenities directed at a specific poster. It's specifically against the Terms of Service (http://www.nationstates.net/pages/legal.html): "You may submit content to NationStates.net so long as it is not obscene, illegal, threatening, malicious, or defamatory, does not invade the privacy or infringe the intellectual property of a third party, and does not constitute 'spam.'"

The word "fuck" isn't banned, but using it repeatedly against a poster is unacceptable.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

No, actually the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. Nor does the US Code dealing with the 16th amendment define income as what is gained domestically.

Helps to know the LAW.

Just a hint.
Read all the posts after mine. We had a nice discussion on this you might have missed. If you do know the law, perhaps you'd realize that there is absolutely no viable case to be made against income tax.

By the way, I don't claim to be a lawyer or anyone exceptionally smart in legal matters. I just think it's common sense.

i disagree with about 90% of what my taxes are used for, but i make the conscious decision to accept that fact because i feel that i gain more from staying where i am and working the job i have then i would gain from trying to go someplace where i wouldn't have to pay taxes.

also, i feel that my post-tax pay is a fair price for the work i do, so i have no reason to demand more money than i make already. in other words, if all taxes were abolished and i was payed exactly what i now get AFTER taxes, i would feel that is a reasonable salary. sure, it would be fun to get to keep my pre-taxes pay, but i would be willing to work for less. hell, i'd be willing to work for less than what i get to keep now...i love my job :).

I can't prove that you use tax dollar-funded services.
That's not the issue. The issue is if that makes me a hypocrite given that there are no alternatives.

So get to it.

That's not the issue. The issue is if that makes me a hypocrite given that there are no alternatives.

So get to it.

Could you rephrase that? I don't understand what you're saying.

And I'm not trying to be an ass, I really don't understand what you said.

Read all the posts after mine. We had a nice discussion on this you might have missed. If you do know the law, perhaps you'd realize that there is absolutely no viable case to be made against income tax.
I did. And there are viable cases against the income tax.

By the way, I don't claim to be a lawyer or anyone exceptionally smart in legal matters. I just think it's common sense.
Common sense...isn't.

Could you rephrase that? I don't understand what you're saying.

And I'm not trying to be an ass, I really don't understand what you said.
How can you not understand it?

YOU: claim that I am a hypocrite because I used taxpayer funded services.

I: respond that many of the services that I use THERE ARE NO PRIVATE ALTERNATIVES BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS OUTLAWED THEM. So how can I be a hypocrite IF THERE ARE NO FUCKING PRIVATE FUCKING ALTERNATIVES?

Get it now? Do I have to draw it for you in crayon?

Allow me.



Emphasis added.

Those are just a couple of your gems. Would you like to see some more?
How was that flaming?

How can you not understand it?

YOU: claim that I am a hypocrite because I used taxpayer funded services.

I: respond that many of the services that I use THERE ARE NO PRIVATE ALTERNATIVES BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS OUTLAWED THEM. So how can I be a hypocrite IF THERE ARE NO FUCKING PRIVATE FUCKING ALTERNATIVES?

Get it now? Do I have to draw it for you in crayon?
you could always go to a country where that is not the case. you choose to remain in a country with a given set of laws and rules, and therefore you are agreeing to abide by those laws and rules. if you cannot stand American tax law then you are free to leave at any time.

Sdaeriji is correct. You may not use such obsenities directed at a specific poster. It's specifically against the Terms of Service (http://www.nationstates.net/pages/legal.html): "You may submit content to NationStates.net so long as it is not obscene, illegal, threatening, malicious, or defamatory, does not invade the privacy or infringe the intellectual property of a third party, and does not constitute 'spam.'"

The word "fuck" isn't banned, but using it repeatedly against a poster is unacceptable.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator
How so? I see nothing in that which was either obsence, illegal, threatening, malicious, defamatory, invaded the privacy, infinged on IP, or was spam.

I need a real answer, please.

How can you not understand it?

YOU: claim that I am a hypocrite because I used taxpayer funded services.

I: respond that many of the services that I use THERE ARE NO PRIVATE ALTERNATIVES BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS OUTLAWED THEM. So how can I be a hypocrite IF THERE ARE NO FUCKING PRIVATE FUCKING ALTERNATIVES?

Get it now? Do I have to draw it for you in crayon?

Because there are alternatives. You don't HAVE to live in society. You COULD go live out in the wilderness on your own. As inconvienent as they may seem to you, alternatives do exist. You just choose to ignore the hard way and instead just complain about having to pay taxes.

And you ought to get off your high horse here. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are.

How was that flaming?

You don't understand how calling me "a stupid fuck" and "a stupid fucking moron" is flaming?

Do you need me to draw it for you in crayon?

How can you not understand it?

YOU: claim that I am a hypocrite because I used taxpayer funded services.

I: respond that many of the services that I use THERE ARE NO PRIVATE ALTERNATIVES BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS OUTLAWED THEM. So how can I be a hypocrite IF THERE ARE NO FUCKING PRIVATE FUCKING ALTERNATIVES?

Get it now? Do I have to draw it for you in crayon?
you could always go to a country where that is not the case. you choose to remain in a country with a given set of laws and rules, and therefore you are agreeing to abide by those laws and rules. if you cannot stand American tax law then you are free to leave at any time.
1. "Love it or leave it" is immature.
2. You imply that the government has the right to do certain things, when it must be demonstrated that it does. That's called "begging the question". Try again. There is no implicit contract, Bottle.

you could always go to a country where that is not the case. you choose to remain in a country with a given set of laws and rules, and therefore you are agreeing to abide by those laws and rules. if you cannot stand American tax law then you are free to leave at any time.
People don't always have the opportunity to leave a given country. The idea of implied consent has held its flaws even when it was first introduced by Socrates. Just because a person lives in a country does not mean they have consented to follow every law.

You don't understand how calling me "a stupid fuck" and "a stupid fucking moron" is flaming?
It's not.

I think you need to grow up.

How so? I see nothing in that which was either obsence, illegal, threatening, malicious, defamatory, invaded the privacy, infinged on IP, or was spam.

I need a real answer, please.
dude, you cussed, called him names, made direct personal attacks, and wasted valuable argument space with all of the above. do you seriously think that you weren't flaming when you called another play a "fucking moron," and a "stupid fuck"?

get a grip, calm down, and stick to the issue. you don't help your case at all by throwing tantrums at other players, so don't waste time with that stuff.

1. "Love it or leave it" is immature.

As immature as it may be, it is still an option. Therefore, your claim that there are no other options is incorrect.

It's not.

I think you need to grow up.
wow, more flame. is there a reason why behavior like this doesn't even get a warning any more?

It's not.

I think you need to grow up.

Do you even know what the term "flaming" means? What, if not calling someone names, would you call flaming?

As immature as it may be, it is still an option. Therefore, your claim that there are no other options is incorrect.
It is an option, but it is not THE option, which is part of the problem. Oftentimes people who subscribe to this opinion act as if it is the only way to run things.

How can you not understand it?

YOU: claim that I am a hypocrite because I used taxpayer funded services.

I: respond that many of the services that I use THERE ARE NO PRIVATE ALTERNATIVES BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS OUTLAWED THEM. So how can I be a hypocrite IF THERE ARE NO FUCKING PRIVATE FUCKING ALTERNATIVES?

Get it now? Do I have to draw it for you in crayon?
Because there are alternatives.
No, there aren't.

You don't have to live in a society.
There's no implicit contract.

You COULD go live out in the wilderness on your own. As inconvienent as they may seem to you, alternatives do exist. You just choose to ignore the hard way and instead just complain about having to pay taxes.
So what? There are no private alternatives to certain things. Using them does not make me a hypocrite.

And I'm way smarter than you. Get used to it.

wow, more flame. is there a reason why behavior like this doesn't even get a warning any more?

Actually, Unfree People told us to tell her if BAWAA flamed any more. There's a thread that I started somewhere in moderation about it if you desire.

wow, more flame. is there a reason why behavior like this doesn't even get a warning any more?
Show the flame.

People don't always have the opportunity to leave a given country. The idea of implied consent has held its flaws even when it was first introduced by Socrates. Just because a person lives in a country does not mean they have consented to follow every law.
i would disagree...while it is true that people MAY be restricted in their ability to leave a given country, i believe that all persons in a country are obligated to follow the laws of that country, even if they don't like them. i can't just go out and kill people because i believe my country's murder laws are unjust, and if i choose to kill people then i deserve to be in prison. i can try, through legal avenues, to change laws that i believe are unjust, but i cannot simply choose not to follow the laws i don't like.

wow, more flame. is there a reason why behavior like this doesn't even get a warning any more?
No worries, at this pace he'll be deleted soon enough as is.

Show the flame.
i'm sorry, i don't feel trolls.

It is an option, but it is not THE option, which is part of the problem. Oftentimes people who subscribe to this opinion act as if it is the only way to run things.

I certainly don't think that. But the fact remains that it is an option, as unviable as it may be. His claim that there are absolutely no other alternatives is not true, because there is an alternative. He just doesn't like it.

dude, you cussed,
There's no such thing.

called him names,
No. I called it as it is.

made direct personal attacks,
Again: I called it as it is.

and wasted valuable argument space with all of the above. do you seriously think that you weren't flaming when you called another play a "fucking moron," and a "stupid fuck"?
Yes.

You're wasting time by not showing the flame. Grow up.

i'm sorry, i don't feel trolls.
Good. Then you'lll show the flame.

i would disagree...while it is true that people MAY be restricted in their ability to leave a given country, i believe that all persons in a country are obligated to follow the laws of that country, even if they don't like them. i can't just go out and kill people because i believe my country's murder laws are unjust, and if i choose to kill people then i deserve to be in prison. i can try, through legal avenues, to change laws that i believe are unjust, but i cannot simply choose not to follow the laws i don't like.

It depends. Firstly, are the nation's laws just or unjust? Are you being given due proess? Are the laws even sensible and realistic? There is a difference between killing someone and being punished for it and (in Socrates case) claiming there is no god and being put to death for it.

I certainly don't think that. But the fact remains that it is an option, as unviable as it may be. His claim that there are absolutely no other alternatives is not true, because there is an alternative. He just doesn't like it.
There are no alternatives. You just don't like that. You think that there is an implicit contract. There isn't. Get over it.

There are no alternatives. You just don't like that. You think that there is an implicit contract. There isn't. Get over it.

Why don't you explain what you mean by implicit contract, and try and see if you can do it without resorting to petty name-calling.

This is what I often hear from uber-free market capitalists.

I agree with them. It is robbery. While I dislike taxes, and I think government should reduce them when it can, they are justified.

I think this because providing free healthcare, shelter and education to citizens who can't afford it privately is, in my opinion, a high moral and practical obligation that justifies taking money from wealthier citizens by coercion.

Letting your citizens off tax-free is not worth letting your nation's poor die on the streets.
It is mass robbery and should be abolished. For me.

i would disagree...while it is true that people MAY be restricted in their ability to leave a given country, i believe that all persons in a country are obligated to follow the laws of that country, even if they don't like them. i can't just go out and kill people because i believe my country's murder laws are unjust, and if i choose to kill people then i deserve to be in prison. i can try, through legal avenues, to change laws that i believe are unjust, but i cannot simply choose not to follow the laws i don't like.
Sure you can. Remember the Jim Crow laws in the South? People stopped following them to make a point as to how unfair they were.

Unless you want to admit that the blacks should have just followed the laws, and not been such "uppity niggers who didn't know their place", even while challenging them in a court which wouldn't hear them anyway.

There are no alternatives. You just don't like that. You think that there is an implicit contract. There isn't. Get over it.

There may be no implied consent by living in a country, but there are alternatives. I would advise you to stop being so confrontational and dogmatic. You are only hurting your case by arguing in this manner.

Why don't you explain what you mean by implicit contract, and try and see if you can do it without resorting to petty name-calling.
Why don't you try to research it for yourself. See if you can do it. It won't hurt your fingers to hit google and do a little searching.

There may be no implied consent by living in a country, but there are alternatives.
Nope.

I would advise you to stop being so confrontational and dogmatic. You are only hurting your case by arguing in this manner.
I'm not hurting it at all.

It is mass robbery and should be abolished. For me.

Me too. But just the two of us.

Why don't you try to research it for yourself. See if you can do it. It won't hurt your fingers to hit google and do a little searching.

No, it's your point, it's your work. Convince me. I'm not going to do your research for you. If you can't show it to me here, I won't believe it.

It depends. Firstly, are the nation's laws just or unjust? Are you being given due proess? Are the laws even sensible and realistic? There is a difference between killing someone and being punished for it and (in Socrates case) claiming there is no god and being put to death for it.
whether or not something is "unjust" or "just" is purely subjective. if you personally feel that the laws of a given nation are unjust then you can either work within their legal system to change those laws, or you can leave. to me, the only objective kind of "injustice" is when laws are not being applied as they are supposed to; if, for instance, black people are prosecuted for committing a certain crime, but Chinese people aren't prosecuted for the same crime, then that is an example of injustice because the law is not being applied to all persons as it is designed to.

personally, i think at least half of American law is totally senseless. drug restrictions, sodomy laws, laws telling people they can't be naked in public...all that is totally nonsensical to me, and my personal morality holds that it is unjust for any person to be denied those freedoms. that is why i work to change laws that i believe are unjust, and i accept that if i am caught breaking one of those laws then i will deserve to face whatever penalties the law sets down.

Why don't you try to research it for yourself. See if you can do it. It won't hurt your fingers to hit google and do a little searching.
you introduced the term, and you are using it for your own case. the burden is on you to provide an explanation, if you wish your case to have merit. if you choose not to explain what you mean by that term then you must accept that other people will ignore your use of that term, and will not accept it as a support for your position. if you don't want them to ignore it then you need to clarify what you mean, and establish your position. you may not simply insist that they make your case for you.

to me, the only objective kind of "injustice" is when laws are not being applied as they are supposed to; if, for instance, black people are prosecuted for committing a certain crime, but Chinese people aren't prosecuted for the same crime, then that is an example of injustice because the law is not being applied to all persons as it is designed to. Agreed. However, i would include laws such as Prohibition, which were unrealistic and more damaging than not.

And I'm way smarter than you. Get used to it.

If you were smart, you'd have ceased your constant trolling.

Maybe a week in the time-out corner will teach you some respect.

Agreed. However, i would include laws such as Prohibition, which were unrealistic and more damaging than not.
see, and i believe that Prohibition was unjust because it was directly in conflict with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and therefore fits my criterion of a law that is not enforced in accordance with the law. had Prohibition been a totally Constitutional law, i would have to say that it was just...but it still would have been stupid, and a very very bad idea. :)

If you were smart, you'd have ceased your constant trolling.

Maybe a week in the time-out corner will teach you some respect.
much appreciated. i hope he cools down and comes back to discuss the ISSUES, rather than making personal attacks. i hate not getting to finish a discussion simply because one party lost their head.

see, and i believe that Prohibition was unjust because it was directly in conflict with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and therefore fits my criterion of a law that is not enforced in accordance with the law. had Prohibition been a totally Constitutional law, i would have to say that it was just...but it still would have been stupid, and a very very bad idea. :)

It would have been very hard for Prohibition to have been Constitutional, don't you think?

It would have been very hard for Prohibition to have been Constitutional, don't you think?
well yes, i meant if our Constitution were different or something; i believe that passing Prohibition-style laws is stupid no matter where you are, even if you are in a country where such laws are totally just.

And you're welcome to give the poor all the money you want. Don't expect me to do it, and certainly don't have the government force me to. That's offensive.
Offensive or not, I don't really think that you have a choice here.

You in turn oughta provide a list of nations that have taxed themselves into prosperity.
USA
UK
France
Canada
Sweden
Germany
Norway
(insert every prosperous country)

All of them levy taxes. Remember that in the USA, FDR dramatically increased the tax on the rich and the largest economic boom in US history followed - helped by WW2 of course.

Prove it. Now. Prove that ONLY a government can provide a military, police, and roads.
I think that a private company can provide roads and in fact they do in some places. There is a stretch of road on the northern outskirts of my city which was built by a private company. You have to pay a toll to use it.

As for the police and military, many private companies do hire their own security to protect their property and employees. But without a government police and military that does not favour any particular company, what's to stop a private company building up an army to literally destroy all of its competition?

Prove that the ends justify the means.
If there were no public services, provided by taxation, lots of poor people would die. I suppose it comes down to whether you think the lives of your fellow citizens are worth a few of your dollars?

USA
UK
France
Canada
Sweden
Germany
Norway
(insert every prosperous country)

All of them levy taxes. Remember that in the USA, FDR dramatically increased the tax on the rich and the largest economic boom in US history followed - helped by WW2 of course.
So, putting more money in the government's coffers, and out of the hands of those who create jobs and invest, has made those countries' citizens more prosperous, right?

Do you have any understanding of economics?

Dont want to pay taxes?
I suggest you live in a country where you dont have to pay any taxes.
The world has lots:
Somalia
Haiti
Sudan
Chechnya
Iraq
Congo


They will be glad to have you~
Wait! You forgot such desireably locations as

Saudi Arabia
North Korea
Antartica

So, putting more money in the government's coffers, and out of the hands of those who create jobs and invest, has made those countries' citizens more prosperous, right?

Do you have any understanding of economics?
I didn't say that they were prosperous because of taxation. I said they were prosperous while levying taxes.

I agree that cutting taxes stimulates the economy, sure enough I've seen it in my own country. But in my own country I have also seen the health service go to shit because there were not enough state funds for it.

I didn't say that they were prosperous because of taxation. I said they were prosperous while levying taxes.

I agree that cutting taxes stimulates the economy, sure enough I've seen it in my own country. But in my own country I have also seen the health service go to shit because there were not enough state funds for it.
And yet, on this side of the pond, insane amounts of tax money go into education, and things have gotten worse, not better.

That's what happens when the Government gets into things that can and do get done better by the private sector.